STX Rules and Setup Questions

[cjd]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

Because toe arms change the bushing to a spherical, which is not allowed per ST rules saying you can not change the style of bushing

Is that the only reason? Because that's a different thing... And solvable. I'm not sure they're allowed for any reason.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

Because toe arms change the bushing to a spherical, which is not allowed per ST rules saying you can not change the style of bushing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some do, but not all. The spc has a poly bushing on the inboard side and the outboard side is a standard ball joint.

The rule I quote means that both the lca and toe arm can be modified or replaced as they comprise the lower lateral links of the multi link suspension. Basically they comprise the 'lower a-arm' if only one arm was allowed to be changed it would be written as singular in the rule book.

Edit: it's also probably written that way to help cars that do need a change to the oe toe arm to achieve desired alignment.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Some do, but not all. The spc has a poly bushing on the inboard side and the outboard side is a standard ball joint.

The rule I quote means that both the lca and toe arm can be modified or replaced as they comprise the lower lateral links of the multi link suspension. Basically they comprise the 'lower a-arm'

Edit: it's also probably written that way to help cars that do need a change to the oe toe arm to achieve desired alignment.

Ahh, interesting. And so awesome if that's how the enforcers see it. I don't know enough to have an opinion now. Which is still a better place to be I suppose. I read the plural simply as "both sides" not "all arms that are considered part of the lower suspension components"

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by cjd

not "all arms that are considered part of the lower suspension components"

It isn't all arms as trailing arms are expressly not allowed to be changed. And I believe some designs would require two links to be changed to get full camber adjustment.
Edit: From 14.8.H "These kits consist of either adjustable length arms or arm mounts (includ- ing ball joints) that provide a lateral adjustment to the effective length of a control arm."
The "toe" link in Subaru's multi-link design controls the camber as much as the LCA does, it is part of the 'lower control arms' that are allowed to be changed. Most haven't bothered either because they're fine with the factory cam bolt (due to infrequent alignments or paying a shop to do it) and ~$180 is a good amount of seat time which we all probably need more than another knob to turn.

Minimal performance benefit if the rules are followed (the big benefit that I would understand why a protest would be put forward would be reduced bushing deflection) only really useful for those of us trying to save a few bucks on alignment.

@M0nk3y if I get the arm and it doesn't follow the rules on bushings I'll post it up. I think when it comes to the spc it's on firmer ground since it's part of the new spec class kit which is supposedly allowed to run STX.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

if I get the arm and it doesn't follow the rules on bushings I'll post it up. I think when it comes to the spc it's on firmer ground since it's part of the new spec class kit which is supposedly allowed to run STX.

It looks like the Whiteline (discontinued?) also uses a bushing, and may have less metal content... A bit more $. I hate that cam bolt... So much for doing my own alignments to save money... Some day.

[M0nk3y]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

It isn't all arms as trailing arms are expressly not allowed to be changed. And I believe some designs would require two links to be changed to get full camber adjustment.
Edit: From 14.8.H "These kits consist of either adjustable length arms or arm mounts (includ- ing ball joints) that provide a lateral adjustment to the effective length of a control arm."
The "toe" link in Subaru's multi-link design controls the camber as much as the LCA does, it is part of the 'lower control arms' that are allowed to be changed. Most haven't bothered either because they're fine with the factory cam bolt (due to infrequent alignments or paying a shop to do it) and ~$180 is a good amount of seat time which we all probably need more than another knob to turn.

Minimal performance benefit if the rules are followed (the big benefit that I would understand why a protest would be put forward would be reduced bushing deflection) only really useful for those of us trying to save a few bucks on alignment.

@M0nk3y if I get the arm and it doesn't follow the rules on bushings I'll post it up. I think when it comes to the spc it's on firmer ground since it's part of the new spec class kit which is supposedly allowed to run STX.

Be careful. Just because it's allowed in SSC doesn't mean it's allowed in STX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

Be careful. Just because it's allowed in SSC doesn't mean it's allowed in STX.

We'll know when the ssc rules are published

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced as it's part of the "camber kit" that's being sold by tire rack for the car. Which will be interesting as we all know the default bushing for the spc lca is definitely not ST* legal.

I wouldn't be doing it if I thought it was illegal, and I certainly wouldn't be posting it up here if I thought it offered an illegal competitive advantage. I appreciate the devil's advocate as I want to build a legit car. But like cjd that cam bolt has caused me quite a few gray hairs.

[M0nk3y]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

We'll know when the ssc rules are published



The more I think about it the more I'm convinced as it's part of the "camber kit" that's being sold by tire rack for the car. Which will be interesting as we all know the default bushing for the spc lca is definitely not ST* legal.

What I'm getting at is the SSC is NOT a upgrade path to STX. They've made this clear. That means modifications/parts allowed will not carry over


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

What I'm getting at is the SSC is NOT a upgrade path to STX. They've made this clear. That means modifications/parts allowed will not carry over

Is that in anything published? Because the statement reads that you can run an ssc prepped car in STX. I agree I'm being cheeky with my interpretation, but if I misread I'd like to know now.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Is that in anything published? Because the statement reads that you can run an ssc prepped car in STX. I agree I'm being cheeky with my interpretation, but if I misread I'd like to know now.

They do that with other spec builds as well - typically it means that allowances are made in some areas because the car would be uncompetitive in the "can also run" class when built to the spec rules.

At this point I'm still on the "not legal" side for the toe arm, as there is nothing anywhere suggesting it is legal to replace for ST* beyond a rather generous reading of the rules - not just because of the bushing, but because of the increased range of toe adjustment available.

Perhaps a well written letter for clarification is in order? Especially if you can make the case for it being part of the 'lower arm' assembly and therefore allowed under the current rules. I can't, so I'll continue greying hairs I don't have (or maybe just get better toe plates and a buddy to help with the alignment...)

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by cjd

At this point I'm still on the "not legal" side for the toe arm, as there is nothing anywhere suggesting it is legal to replace for ST* beyond a rather generous reading of the rules - not just because of the bushing, but because of the increased range of toe adjustment available.

I don't think it's a "generous reading" at all.

The rule is written such that multi link and a arm are under the same rules. An A-arm controls both the toe and camber like in an MX5 rear lca, Subarus multi link uses three links or arms to mimic a lower A-arm. Changing/modifying one A-arm on the MX5 (i.e. With higher offset poly bushings as is common to do in STR/STS) is equivalent to changing both lateral links on the 86s rear lower suspension. The MX5 a-arm is factory adjustable same as the toe link on the 86, but the rules are there to allow it to change, allow us to tinker, that's the allure of the class.

Part of 14.8.H also allows for adjustment outside of factory range, the whole point of the rule is precisely to allow for increased range of alignment capability.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but as long as it follows the bushing rules, imho an aftermarket toe arm is legal on the 86 in STX trim. Nobody does it because at nearly $200 I think anybody sane would agree that money is better spent on seat time, but for tinkerers that money is well spent on cutting down alignment time and frustration (they'll pay for themselves if it saves me more than two trips to the local shop).

Hell even if they're not legal I'm going to use them to test n tune and slap the oe ones back in if I've actually got a shot at placing well in a big event. I think it'd be a weenie protest as long as the bushing rules are respected, and after all, there's nothing stopping someone from taking an oe link and replacing that bushing with some extremely stiff poly to reduce flex.

Also by googling the rule, there's a fast track letter response from February 2016 that seems to support my reading of the rule that it does not limit the number of components that are allowed to change. I can post it later but I'm on my phone now.

Edit: Link

#17733 STS Civic arm mounts and alternate arms?
In the opinion of the STAC, 14.8.H does not restrict the number of camber kits that may be used concurrently. Using
alternate upper arm mounts as well as alternate upper arms on an STS Civic is compliant as long as the restrictions
of 14.8.H.1-6 are met.

[cjd]

@strat61caster thanks for the follow up. What makes the toe arm part of the lower, rather than upper arm?

[NJ10]

Good luck to everyone in STX for tomorrow and Friday!!

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by cjd

@strat61caster thanks for the follow up. What makes the toe arm part of the lower, rather than upper arm?

Where it attaches to the chassis and wheel hub would be my definition. Upper arms above the bearing/axle horizontal plane, lower arms below the bearing/axle. If I had the upper control arm adjustable bushing installed I would read the rule as not allowing me to change the toe arm and/or LCA from factory spec.
Edit: It's also part of the rear camber adjustment if you have an LCA, you can't dial in camber and toe without adjusting these two links, just like the lower a-arm on an MX-5 or S2k requires adjusting a minimum of two bushings, I'd classify it as the set of 'lower links/arms' that would be part of a 'camber kit' but it's certainly close to that line as you may be alluding to.



If there was a link that straddled or crossed that line (lower to upper or vice versa) and I wanted to change it I'd write a letter. Although that'd be a pretty tricky suspension design (an arm crossing the horizontal plane of the axle would have some wicked dynamic alignment changes going on).

As the rule is currently written I don't see how changing the 86's rear toe link is illegal as long as it follows bushing rules and you're not modifying the upper a-arm as well. The Fast Track supports the idea that there's no explicit language that limits the number of camber/toe adjustment devices you can install/modify, if that was the intent then I believe the rulebook would have to be revised to support that.