chono

Hi STU Autoxers,

This must be discussed in another thread.. but I can't find it.

Are these rule changes coming? Or are these proposals that require our feedback?
http://www.scca.org/documents/2011%2...04-25-2011.pdf

On this page:
http://www.scca.org/contentpage.aspx?content=61


I'm curious about the brake rotor rule -- it essentially locks us into using stock rotors. A stock sized replacement rotor that isn't the SAME (or greater) weight is not allowed in the new ruleset. We also lose aluminum hats - which as you know, are super bling and have much awesome.

Anyhow - this new rule makes us use the stock rotors OR makes finding OEM fitment alternatives a process of trial and error - since I don't think manufacturers publish the weights of the non-bling rotors.


-chono

Butt Dyno

iTrader: (10)

It's just a proposal - sebscca.com to send feedback.

I'm actually a little torn about the brake allowances. I had Stoptechs on my WRX - which were much bigger than the OEM brakes but maybe 2 lbs lighter per corner. This is going to hurt people who do track+autox and use a BBK - almost all of them are lighter than stock.

But looking at it from the cost per performance perspective you can easily spend $1K on a set of pimpy 2 piece rotors just to save 4 lbs per corner. And if we really want the class to avoid being SP-lite (not literally in this case) this might be a step in that direction.

The hard part is writing a rule that lets you run two piece / better for track rotors, without allowing someone to come up with something expensive and super custom that drops a ton of weight.

Bassicfun

iTrader: (10)

Personally, I am a fan of the similar weight 1 piece rotor in the rule set. For those of us who both track and autoX, you simply change the rotors out when you change the pads out, it is only 2 bolts per corner (and many just do the front).
[rant] To me the spirit of ST* should be to encourage people to run their vehicle that is a daily or at least summer daily driver, without requiring high dollar consumables to be had. Coming from a CRX for years, the 245/40/17s new each year is a kick in the pants. I had contemplated going to the 2 piece rotors, but could not justify that for a year round (snow and all) daily driver. I am not saying rotors should weigh AS MUCH AS stock, but should be +/- 10% pretty easily.[/rant]

Silencer

iTrader: (4)

Cost should have nothing to do with it until they do away with high dollar shocks, exhausts, etc. You don't need exotic brake rotors, calipers, or pads to win expecially at AutoX speeds, so why change what is not broke. If anything, the cost goes up requiring 2 sets of rotors and pads if you attend more than one type of racing venue. Also, safety is not a concern so why bother. Just imagine all the existing and future cars eligiable for STU that don't come from the factory with a nice Brembo brake option. Kind of pushes it further into an Evo/STI only class, no? IMO, the brake equipment rule should stay as is allowing same size or larger aftermarket lightweight 2-pc rotors and caliper kits. Pretty soon all of ST ruleset will end up like Stock with 140 rated street tires, lol. ST should be SP-lite. Btw, SP didn't have the nice brake equipment upgrade rules until last year.

Dave

russjnco

iTrader: (36)

I know you jest Dave but show me something that doesn't already suggest that this is the direction the ruleset is heading? ST* as is does not fit into the progression of how the SCCA wants the rules progression to read for Solo 2 as in terms of tires, it is a step backwards from stock. First it was A/C removal, then it was bodywork and now it is brake rotors. What's next because you know that they're not done and part of the reason why I'm out of STU and bought a kart.

chono

I'm trying to figure out what the STACs goal is here.
I see that they want to get all of the rules aligned between ST .. but why?
Is this so that they can move cars around between ST classes (ala stock reclassing of over/underdog cars) without requiring the owners to make component changes?

Or are they afraid that someone will come out with some crazy light (and potentially dangerous) drag race wave rotor setup?

If I could address that concern in my letter then it would help.
I don't think that the STAC is looking for votes ('me too' letters) -- or are they?

Who is (are) the STU representative on the STAC?

I also think that the current rule is fine. Looking at the results -- you don't need fancy brakes to win. But fancy brakes are (arguably) part of the class charter.

Here's the class 'charter':
The Street Touring category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using affordable sports cars and sedans equipped with common suspension, engine, and appearance modifications which are fully legal and compatible with street use anywhere in the country

Basssicfun -- your idea is common and noble -- but just like we see in stock classes, money gets spent and cars become pure race cars. Stock class cars have shocks with so much nitrogen that they get trailered to events!
Unless we remove the competition aspect people will do what (they believe that) it takes to compete!

And if money is a concern -- the 2 piece rotors, for racing applications, are cheaper than stock long term. The wear component (the rotor rings) are relatively cheap to replace. (Though I don't know if rings are cheaper than stock rotors -- how much are stock rotors?)

Butt Dyno -- I agree that its tough to write a rule that prevents the unsafe brakes -- though I think that saying same size as stock or larger AND same type should be sufficient.

I don't think that the sky is falling. And while I'd like to keep my aluminum hats I don't think we need to start wearing tin-foil hats. HA!
There's no way that the membership will allow the ST classes to become street tire stock. There's a reason why the ST classes have been so successful -- and I *think* that its because we get to build cool street cars.
I do hear the frustration of having to remove parts from the car! (Or in the case of A/C - putting it back!)

-"chono"

Vehicle336

"The Street Touring category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. "


I read that as ST* is supposed to be SP-lite. Or Heavy Stock? I dunno. If they want to bring down the overall price tag of ST* I say write a rule that states only single adjustable shocks should be allowed. BAM - there goes 5000 dollar Motons. I just don't see how having larger, lighter and more efficient brakes is something to be demonized. They're brakes and they're pretty important. I'm one of those guys that will be bouncing between track duty and autoX, so I'm not really in favor of not being able to run 2-piece rotors. ****, evo X's have them stock...

Bassicfun

iTrader: (10)

chono - Understood, my feeling is not just a cost issue, but a more of a feeling that the line needs drawn at some point. If you look at the charter as you put it, allows for common engine, suspension and appearance mods, brakes can arguably be included or excluded in the suspension title. Also we have already seen a common appearance mod (different wings/spoilers) removed... I would argue the charter is a simple paragraph for a new person to SCCA to read, it does not touch what actually is included now in the rule set. And I just purchased (last fall) new rotors, compared prices, and it was between girodisc 2 pc and oem style replacements.. I got the OEM style replacements (slotted) shipped to me for $230 for ALL FOUR... vs. Girodisc with a high initial expense, and FRONT BLANKS alone were $500...

Silencer - Your point is taken regarding cost should not be in the equation for the STAC. But as you mentioned if cost does not come into it, then the STAC should not worry that some people decide to road race and feel that OEM style rotors are not good enough for that, therefore buying a second set.

Respectful arguements here on both sides, I am just coming from an area where I have good friends that have been racing nationally for 20+ years, and talk about when SP rules were about what the ST rules are now, and feel the class is being allowed more and more to slip into SP-lite, for better or worse... I am simply sharing 3rd party thoughts as well. Thanks.

Silencer

iTrader: (4)

I soooo miss the mentality and etiquette of this forum. It's been a while since I've been on here (sold my Evo 3 years ago) and now I just picked up a Mustang for continued ESP action. Most of the Mustang Forums are, dare I say, underaged........

Good discussion!

Dave

Butt Dyno

iTrader: (10)

Dave - have you tried corner-carvers?

May not be quite as polite, but definitely not underaged

Oh and technically not a Mustang forum. But there is very good tech there.

Silencer

iTrader: (4)

Yes, just became a member a month ago, but have been searching through the threads for better than a year. Quite the engineering based Forum, but heavy on scratch fabrication. Some of the technical suspension, chasiss, and shock damping threads start to lose me when they get into theorizing. I especially enjoy newbies getting slammed for lame posts. Although I shouldn't talk, I have not posted yet .

Dave