2020 STU Discussion
Apr 9, 2020, 05:54 PM
#121
I see now...you have lots of preload on them so that is why they are so high up!
If so, 9 or 10" springs would bring your perch a bit lower and help with overal freedom with adjustments. But, if you still require that much preload just to keep things at decent height, you might need longer shaft to be installed to avoid all of that.
Going back to the first thing I mentioned above - measure your full extension and compression lengths and that would tell you where your set it. Once you know that, you can figure out what is the next step.
If so, 9 or 10" springs would bring your perch a bit lower and help with overal freedom with adjustments. But, if you still require that much preload just to keep things at decent height, you might need longer shaft to be installed to avoid all of that.
Going back to the first thing I mentioned above - measure your full extension and compression lengths and that would tell you where your set it. Once you know that, you can figure out what is the next step.
Apr 9, 2020, 05:56 PM
#122
Any shock/strut out there has full extended and compressed lengths and that is built in and can not be changed without rebuild. It is possible that you might have a set that is extremely short at full extension, so would test it to make sure what it is. But, from the bottom picture of yours, if that is full extension of the suspension, you will have problems once things are fully loaded.
In general, you have around 900 lb of weight on each of the front wheels, so with 800 lb spring in there, initial drop will be a bit over an inch. Now, you need to have extra space for an additional inch of travel to compensate for dynamic loads and weight transfer. Usually, good way to start with this is to allow about 1.5" of travel and go from there.
So, going back to the picture of the front wheel and how close it is to the fender in what looks like full extension, I would say tires would be having lots of contacts with the metal parts above. But, I might have been missing something there too, so...
In general, you have around 900 lb of weight on each of the front wheels, so with 800 lb spring in there, initial drop will be a bit over an inch. Now, you need to have extra space for an additional inch of travel to compensate for dynamic loads and weight transfer. Usually, good way to start with this is to allow about 1.5" of travel and go from there.
So, going back to the picture of the front wheel and how close it is to the fender in what looks like full extension, I would say tires would be having lots of contacts with the metal parts above. But, I might have been missing something there too, so...
Apr 23, 2020, 07:03 AM
#123
I heard back from Olsen Motorsports.
They can get me an extra inch up front from the droop spacer. That should help significantly. If I needed an additional inch on top of that, I could go with longer shafts (2" extra length). I'm going with the inch for now, so how she performs even though I may have to run at a lower than optimal ride height. If it doesn't work out, I'll send the fronts back for an additional inch.
The rears have no extra room to work with so I will be going with longer shafts out back. I hate to shell out more money right now for the longer shafts, but it is what it is! Should have them back by next week.
They can get me an extra inch up front from the droop spacer. That should help significantly. If I needed an additional inch on top of that, I could go with longer shafts (2" extra length). I'm going with the inch for now, so how she performs even though I may have to run at a lower than optimal ride height. If it doesn't work out, I'll send the fronts back for an additional inch.
The rears have no extra room to work with so I will be going with longer shafts out back. I hate to shell out more money right now for the longer shafts, but it is what it is! Should have them back by next week.
Apr 23, 2020, 08:53 AM
#124
i ue like 1/4-1/2" preload on the front springs. they are always compressed anyway should never be any lift. i can lengthen the perch at the bottom but it makes it very difficult to reach the adjusters, which are also at the bottom. no problem with the length of my shafts, believe me ask anyone
May 20, 2020, 09:40 AM
#125
I think the new STU rules proposal would make a bunch of cars in STU obsolete. With a recession coming due to COVID19, I think it is prudent to keep an eye on costs for competitors as a lot of them will either be without jobs or taking a paycut. I think it is time to allow some minor mods that don't bump the casual racer out of ST*, for example boost controller, a singe diff replacement in AWD cars, a high performance street clutch and flywheel that a lot of people do (non race puck clutch obviously), get ride of the dumb piping wording that only goes to the intercooler and just have it end at the throttle body for all cars. I guess I partially support the new rules minus the tire width rules.
There are a lot of drivers with cars whose performance level is higher than STU out of the box, those guys need a ST* class to go play in without having to make the jump straight in the SP*. Let's be honest, SP* is a ghost town in most regions and needs to be put to pasture. If anything I think SP* classes can be combined into SM classes where they could have SMA, SMB, SMC, SMD and SME where they can class a bunch of cars and get rid of SP*. I think the correct thing to do, is make a higher class than STU and put those newer cars in there (Eg: STP, remember that? A class that nobody wanted but was shoved through anyways? :P ). But since P = Pony and U = Ultimate, X = extreme, S = sport, R = Roadster, H = how the hell do I know (Hatchback?) , C = Coupe. And I can't think of a word higher than Ultimate.
What the SCCA can to do is:
Move all the newer cars that want an ST class for into STU
Move all the current STU cars into STX
Move all the current STX cars into STS
Move all the current STS cars into that old class we used to have called STC
Leave STH alone
5 ST classes that should be able to class most lightly modded production cars out there.
The whole tire width per class rule is also obsolete and laughable when the car weights vary so much for the same driveline in the same ST class. Eg: How is a 3900lbs AWD STU car supposed to compete with a 3000lbs AWD STU car in STU with 265 wide tires? A much better solution would be base it on the OEM tire wide of the car and have a +20 or +30 tire width allowance over OEM as long as you can fit it into current ST fender rules.
Eg: AWD cars get +30 over OEM allowance
FWD gets +30 over OEM allowance
RWD gets +20 over OEM allowance
Mid engine RWD get +10 over OEM allowance
Yes a few cars may need to get shuffled around to get reclassed but I think this is the best solution to allow heavier cars more tire width in the same class. Plus looking up OEM tire width on the internet for any car is super easy nowadays and easy to police.
Seriously we are our own worst enemies when it comes to rules in the SCCA. No wonder people get cross eyed when they look at the wording in the rule book. Keep it simple keep it fun, IMHO.
Getting to my main question, has anyone been able to fit 265 wide Yoko A052s on the Evo8/9? If so what wheel width and offset? What spacers did you have to use? What camber settings?
There are a lot of drivers with cars whose performance level is higher than STU out of the box, those guys need a ST* class to go play in without having to make the jump straight in the SP*. Let's be honest, SP* is a ghost town in most regions and needs to be put to pasture. If anything I think SP* classes can be combined into SM classes where they could have SMA, SMB, SMC, SMD and SME where they can class a bunch of cars and get rid of SP*. I think the correct thing to do, is make a higher class than STU and put those newer cars in there (Eg: STP, remember that? A class that nobody wanted but was shoved through anyways? :P ). But since P = Pony and U = Ultimate, X = extreme, S = sport, R = Roadster, H = how the hell do I know (Hatchback?) , C = Coupe. And I can't think of a word higher than Ultimate.
What the SCCA can to do is:
Move all the newer cars that want an ST class for into STU
Move all the current STU cars into STX
Move all the current STX cars into STS
Move all the current STS cars into that old class we used to have called STC
Leave STH alone
5 ST classes that should be able to class most lightly modded production cars out there.
The whole tire width per class rule is also obsolete and laughable when the car weights vary so much for the same driveline in the same ST class. Eg: How is a 3900lbs AWD STU car supposed to compete with a 3000lbs AWD STU car in STU with 265 wide tires? A much better solution would be base it on the OEM tire wide of the car and have a +20 or +30 tire width allowance over OEM as long as you can fit it into current ST fender rules.
Eg: AWD cars get +30 over OEM allowance
FWD gets +30 over OEM allowance
RWD gets +20 over OEM allowance
Mid engine RWD get +10 over OEM allowance
Yes a few cars may need to get shuffled around to get reclassed but I think this is the best solution to allow heavier cars more tire width in the same class. Plus looking up OEM tire width on the internet for any car is super easy nowadays and easy to police.
Seriously we are our own worst enemies when it comes to rules in the SCCA. No wonder people get cross eyed when they look at the wording in the rule book. Keep it simple keep it fun, IMHO.
Getting to my main question, has anyone been able to fit 265 wide Yoko A052s on the Evo8/9? If so what wheel width and offset? What spacers did you have to use? What camber settings?
Last edited by DaWorstPlaya; May 21, 2020 at 02:18 PM.
I think this is -1.8 camber. Sorry I don’t know how to rotate the pic.
May 20, 2020, 07:02 PM
#128
Getting to my main question, has anyone been able to fit 265 wide Yoko A052s on the Evo8/9? If so what wheel width and offset? What spacers did you have to use? What camber settings?
May 21, 2020, 07:15 AM
#130
I did it with RPF-1s - 18x10 +38 with a 19mm spacer up front. I have -4.0* degrees of camber up front, but it's still prone to rubbing with the fender liners, but would also rub with the 265/35/18 RE71Rs mounted (RE71R is slightly narrower on the same wheel). I think the RE71R is better matched to a 10" wide wheel than the A052 is, but it might not be faster - I haven't had an opportunity to back-to-back them in my own car but "conventional wisdom" says the A052 is faster, especially on a wheel that supports it.
May 21, 2020, 02:09 PM
#131
I did it with RPF-1s - 18x10 +38 with a 19mm spacer up front. I have -4.0* degrees of camber up front, but it's still prone to rubbing with the fender liners, but would also rub with the 265/35/18 RE71Rs mounted (RE71R is slightly narrower on the same wheel). I think the RE71R is better matched to a 10" wide wheel than the A052 is, but it might not be faster - I haven't had an opportunity to back-to-back them in my own car but "conventional wisdom" says the A052 is faster, especially on a wheel that supports it.
May 21, 2020, 02:24 PM
#132
I had the same wheel and tire setup.
Front required at least an 18mm spacer (+20mm net offset) for the RPF-1s to comfortably clear the calipers.
Rear required at least 3mm spacer (+35mm net offset) to clear the rear trailing arm. It looks like tire clears with no spacer, but the tire deflects under load enough to rub on the trailing arm. Also consider shaving the sharp edge off of the ABS bracket just to be safe.
Front required at least an 18mm spacer (+20mm net offset) for the RPF-1s to comfortably clear the calipers.
Rear required at least 3mm spacer (+35mm net offset) to clear the rear trailing arm. It looks like tire clears with no spacer, but the tire deflects under load enough to rub on the trailing arm. Also consider shaving the sharp edge off of the ABS bracket just to be safe.
May 21, 2020, 11:46 PM
#133
Interesting about the rubbing. I had the same setup (18x10+38 / 18mm spacer / RE71R) with zero rubbing problems. I ran with the front control over level to the ground at static height and 850lbs/in springs and I also pulled the fender liners back in a few places with zip ties to be safe. Maybe that's the difference?
. I might try that trick though, thanks for the idea 
As for ride height, here's a shot of the front passenger side (contingency photo) from 2019 Solo Nationals - I had the front set around 26.5" - 26.75" when measuring from the ground to the center of the fender arch.
May 22, 2020, 07:46 AM
#134
It's funny: Every time I go to the track my Evo looks like a monster truck in grid next to all the lowered track cars.