May Fastrack....Stock Class Beware
 

What am I missing don't see anything too earth shattering in there for CS/RTR?

the updated proposal is much better than the original and should please the
largest number of Stock/RT drivers. there will still be a few unhappy campers
but you can't please everybody.

^^^^ this.. :)

I'm a big fan of the updated proposal, I think it is a good move for the sport, as well as a way to better retain novices who bring out their daily drivers. There will obviously be people who take the rules to the extreme (-4 degrees of camber with massive front bars), but I think it will be very interesting to see what proves to be fast.

I have been offered a national co-drive in a Street BRZ, and I will probably take them up on the offer over my STR s2000, just to show support for the changes. If I didn't absolutely love the STR car and allowed mods, I'd be in a Street car of my own. Time to get off eBay...

:happy0180:

The only thing I wish they'd have included was a sunset rule opportunity for the new S-R designations per each classes participation. But I'll admit that is a bit of a selfish wish, and would assume most wouldn't last very long. Current FS seems to be the last group still a bit screwed by this change... which had dwindling participation recently anyway.

But otherwise, very much in favor of this update now. I like the re-writing of the camber allowance, though I see some people still having complaints that the new rule still remains strut-type only (wont see us complaining though hehe). I think the ESC/TC defeat rule is written better, and time will tell if it is still too open ended and permits the ability to hide other competitive-advantage fanciness.

Still not sure if I want to run this new "S" class long term, but I like the thought that I could run SR in 2014 and have an extra year of planning if I wanted to put together funding for a STX or maybe even a SP :drool: build.

35 for SSR 2 straight years seems steep for the sunset clause, but with numbers normally 60+, shouldnt be an issue.

Totally Agree Tim.. Some of the Hardcores are already petitioning the board for this to let this die a quick death. Sad as I think its a Great Proposal. :)

I should say support this proposal under the guise that the R-comp ban is an inevitability. :sigh: :reposthorse:

So really what was changed other than letting the SS drivers who complained hard enough get their way since they would never be able to keep traction on street tires and still be competitive.

Really? :sigh:
You can read the cliff notes at the top of the fastrack or...

No second sway bar
No ban of the remote reservoir dampers
Clarification on strut camber allowances to prevent excessive modification including preventing ride height modification
Further clarification of TCS/ESC disabiling methods
No Limited SP prep
An additional year of R-Comps
Long term SSR plan

Sooo they made quite a few adjustments based on member feedback.

Love the proposal as it stands now. Also love that we get camber and the Miatas don't :)

Does 13.10 E allow for the Crawford AOS?

"The installation of oil catch tanks is allowed provided the function of the PCV system is not altered"

If not, I need to sell mine...

LOL actually after posting this I saw that there were notes and a bunch of modifications in red. I was a little quick to comment. The proposal looks good. I still wish we were able to add width to the wheels. Lightweight 17x7 5x100 are limited in choices. Thanks for clarifying.

I am liking this proposal better as it advances through reviews. I think they are doing a good job. I do have a question though; how are remote reservoir dampers legal? As I understand the rules, the shocks must be like OEM but now you can have adjustable shocks. OEM shocks do not have remote reservoirs and if it doesn't say you can, you can't. Where am I missing the wording that allows them? And, are they really that much better?

Definitely like the new proposal.

Now we just gotta hope they get the MSR MX-5s and ZOK Soltices (Solstii?) out of CS.

That's the same as the old rule. I ended up selling mine and just using a Radium can on the actual PCV line, because of the rule. I was surprised the amount of oil it's caught after a couple autocrosses.

The Crawford can through its mounting also happens to tie together the two diagonal braces, which also isn't legal.

Hence why it needs to be fixed.. My personal opinion is that someone along the way made an argument that hey.. I could replace my stock shocks with remote reservoir shocks.. along with R comp rubber.. I personally think Stock should be just that Stock. with OE replacement parts.. only.. my 2 peso's..


Bill

It doesn't say anything about them being like OEM and never has. They have allowed any type of shock in stock class as long as it meets certain criteria, such as stock attachment points and the overall length has to be within 1" of stock. It also can only have two adjustments. The nitrogen pressure is not considered an adjustment.

Typically the remotes allow for extra oil which means less heat, also sometimes the shock components work better because you aren't having to package so much in the shock body. It can also allow compression to be adjusted easier since they are typically easy to get to versus having to monkey with something on the bottom of the shock.

The original reason why they allowed non-OEM shocks was for safety reasons, specifically when used with R compound tires. OEM shocks were terrible and a rollover was certainly possible. They took out the "no remote" rule change because they realized shocks aren't easy to police and some have made a significant investment in shocks already. Someone will rebuild/revalve/change internals on any shock and spend whatever they need to get an advantage. It's one of those things which is impossible to police. Koni Motorsports (real motorsports) shocks like the 2812 are still $$$ but do not use remote reservoirs.

^^ Agreed. ... had a shot at 2812's .. but didn't work out..
Someone that can't afford the OMG stuff.. shouldn't be precluded from running for a title just because they can't afford the top shelf livery.. :) .. Again my opinion.. Autocross is meant to be affordable for the Average Joe... for the most part.. But I also understand the other side..:)

Bill

Like Sam has said plenty of times many championships have been won on off the shelf or simply revalved Konis and even stock shocks. In the end it is a tenths type of gain, not seconds.

It seems like 16x7 5x100 would be an option.

Finding a lightweight 16x7 in the right offset isn't easy. Rota used to make the slipstream in +48, about 14 lbs, but they stopped making them a long time ago. You can find the motegi traklite in 16x7 +50 but they aren't cheap. 17x7 has more tire options, 16x7 the 225/50 is the only real tire offered.

I guess that will eventually be legal lol

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

I'm new to this auto x stuff.. Can someone clarify the T/C rules, particularly as it relates to our car? It seems like they deleted the rule that allows us to disable it when they removed 13.10.O, is that correct?

If you can disable it via an existing method the car supports via buttons, switches, etc. then you are free to do so. The original allowance they added in was to allow people to change the T/C computer and vehicle ECU for all vehicles, they narrowed it down now to ONLY vehicles which do not have another method to defeat it. The only "autocross" car right now which comes to mind is the VW GTI.

So no change for us, you can defeat it by holding the button down or doing the "pedal dance" trick.