Project FRS - Autocross build & videos

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by justinco

Oh yea, the rules...No, it is legal, or should be under section 2 below as it is explicitly allowed. I checked rules before buying it of course, and I have seen multiple BRZ's at Nats the past 2 years with them, some cars with the entire STi lip/sideskirt kit.

It comes from the Subaru Accessory catalog, not a performance catalog, and it is installed as directed by the manufacturer.
http://www.subaru.com/content/dam/su...ccessories.pdf

Worst case is I would just pull it off before Nats, takes 10 minutes, but I think it will be fine.

From the Street Touring section of the rule book:

Since it's listed under the STi section of the catalog, doesn't this make it a part of Subaru's performance catalog and therefore ineligible?

Has anyone thrown paper or written a letter on this? Personally I wouldn't like my chances. I was one of the first to install the TRD bits in CS, but there was some serious research done to prove the parts were port-installed and I felt my chances were very good if someone threw paper.

[justinco]

Originally Posted by renfield90

Since it's listed under the STi section of the catalog, doesn't this make it a part of Subaru's performance catalog and therefore ineligible?

The way the rule is worded it just says "US accessory catalog" and "STi brand" is just a part of that catalog. It does not say "performance" which is what is explicitly prohibited while "accessory" is explicitly allowed.

Originally Posted by renfield90

Has anyone thrown paper or written a letter on this? Personally I wouldn't like my chances. I was one of the first to install the TRD bits in CS, but there was some serious research done to prove the parts were port-installed and I felt my chances were very good if someone threw paper.

I haven't heard any protests in regards to it, but like I said I have seen people with them at Nats. The TRD bits are a little different I think, they are performance enhancing whereas I do not see a front lip being a performance enhancement.

I actually think the chances are very high of the STi under-spoilers surviving a protest. I'm no expert in protests, but the protester would have to provide clear evidence that it is not allowed, or provides a performance benefit, right? On the other hand, there is clear evidence that it is allowed

Anyways, Spring Nats is a good time to look into potential protests, so I'll have it on the car and ask around. I don't think it will be a big deal and worst case I will just take it off for Nats, not that I think I will be in contention for it to matter anyways :p

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by justinco

The way the rule is worded it just says "US accessory catalog" and "STi brand" is just a part of that catalog. It does not say "performance" which is what is explicitly prohibited while "accessory" is explicitly allowed.

I haven't heard any protests in regards to it, but like I said I have seen people with them at Nats. The TRD bits are a little different I think, they are performance enhancing whereas I do not see a front lip being a performance enhancement.

I actually think the chances are very high of the STi under-spoilers surviving a protest. I'm no expert in protests, but the protester would have to provide clear evidence that it is not allowed, or provides a performance benefit, right? On the other hand, there is clear evidence that it is allowed

Anyways, Spring Nats is a good time to look into potential protests, so I'll have it on the car and ask around. I don't think it will be a big deal and worst case I will just take it off for Nats, not that I think I will be in contention for it to matter anyways :p

STi is EXACTLY like TRD, NISMO, and friends. You really think you can convince a PC that they are different somehow? Also, you really think the title on the catalog matters compared to the spirit of the rule? Toyota could publish the same bits in the "Toyota US accessory catalog" with TRD stampings and it would be just as illegal IMO; just because the TRD parts catalog gets embedded in another catalog does not suddenly make it legal.

2nd...why do you want to install it if there's no performance advantage? It sure looks like there is to me - Toyota extended the length of the front lip on the 2017s precisely for the reason the STi front lip exists: better aero.

3rd..."other people ran it at 2016 nats without issue" isn't a good defense to the PC unless they were protested and found to be compliant.

IMO these violate 14.2.F.2. They would be ok if they weren't in the STi section of the catalog or if they were available as a port install. I'd be less salty if they were available to me.

When Fenstermacher did the due diligence on the CS TRD parts he was happy to send all his documentation to the SEB for a tech bulletin because he was extremely confident they would be found legal (and they were). If you are equally convinced they are legal, you can request a tech bulletin as well and that will nip all protests in the bud. If you think there's a chance the SEB won't see things your way, then maybe they aren't legal after all. Edit: you can search previous Fastracks for previous tech bulletins as well, or search the monster STX thread. It may have been covered already.

[DocWalt]

Pretty sure the STI lip isn't legal until there's another "series blue" with the lip.

[justinco]

Wow relax, I bought it because it looks cool...

Sorry, but I am not going to argue over this. If someone were to actually protest me, then I will hand the PC my printed copy of the 2017 BRZ Accessories catalog and say "here, this is my evidence which says my part is explicitly allowed per rule 14.2.F2."

Also, here are others thoughts:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=2506

[cjd]

Originally Posted by justinco

Wow relax, I bought it because it looks cool...

Sorry, but I am not going to argue over this. If someone were to actually protest me, then I will hand the PC my printed copy of the 2017 BRZ Accessories catalog and say "here, this is my evidence which says my part is explicitly allowed per rule 14.2.F2."

Also, here are others thoughts:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=2506

Prior to 2017 the STi trim was available on the series blue and thus legal.
2017, you're relying on it being in the upgrade catalog. It's been covered.

Legality of an STi lip for 2013-2016 and 2017+ cant be compared because they're different models, no swapping or update/backdate provisions.

I suspect it's a bigger deal for discussion because these build threads are often used by newcomers. The STX thread probably is the better place.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by justinco

Wow relax, I bought it because it looks cool...

Sorry, but I am not going to argue over this. If someone were to actually protest me, then I will hand the PC my printed copy of the 2017 BRZ Accessories catalog and say "here, this is my evidence which says my part is explicitly allowed per rule 14.2.F2."

Also, here are others thoughts:
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=2506

Relax. If you don't beat me I won't protest.

[justinco]

Originally Posted by cjd

Prior to 2017 the STi trim was available on the series blue and thus legal.
2017, you're relying on it being in the upgrade catalog. It's been covered.

Yea I thought that was pretty obvious the way the rule is written. The rule says either, so as long as you meet one of the provisions you are legal...

[M0nk3y]

If you're relying (and trying to argue) on better Aero at 48 mph then I think you have other issues we need to cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DocWalt]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

If you're relying (and trying to argue) on better Aero at 48 mph then I think you have other issues we need to cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think any of us would say that the lip is going to provide more than a microscopic performance benefit at autocross speeds, but rules are rules and you have to stick to them.

The fact that the lip is in the genuine accessory catalog is great, but it's up to someone to decide if it's "OK" considering it's in the STI section and I thought the "tuner" company parts (TRD, Nismo, STI, etc) were disallowed.

I don't really have a horse in this race, so it doesn't much matter to me... but the STI lip looks awesome on Justin's car and might help save the front end from some cone strikes (which is why I had the old STI lip on mine, lol)

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

If you're relying (and trying to argue) on better Aero at 48 mph then I think you have other issues we need to cover.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In 3rd gear at 67 mph coming into a braking zone is where that lip helps you.

But even if we discount that, what's the point of rules if we're not going to follow them? If you're trying to be at the pointy end you should avoid doing stuff to your car unless you're positive you can win with the SEB and/or PC, and you *need* what that part gives you (see: Manic tunes for JCW).

[justinco]

The rules are being followed. You can dream up all these performance benefits or spirit of the rule or whatever, but this case has an explicit allowance.

Here you go...

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Doug G. <edit> wrote:
Hi, Justin,

Yes, you are welcome to share my email. And I’ll be glad to discuss it with anyone. J

Later,

-Doug
Doug G.
SCCA® Solo® Competition Manager
1-800-770-2055

From: Justin M.
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 10:56 AM
To: Doug G. <edit>
Subject: Re: Solo Street Touring rules question

Thanks Doug,

There was some debate on one of the BRZ/FRS forums in an STX rules thread on whether these were legal or not. I just wanted to get some clarification on my thoughts.

Is it ok to share this on the forums so others can benefit and clear up some of the misconceptions?

Justin

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Doug G. <edit> wrote:
Hi, Justin,

Yes, it is a fair assumption that the STI under spoiler is allowed per 2016 Solo Rules section 14.2.F.2 (page 78). However, I would never say it is “clear” that it’s allowed. (I have never seen a protest committee that wanted to rule a competitor was non-compliant.)

But I agree with you – the Solo Rules allow it. Even the description says it “gives the BRZ a mean, ground-hugging look”; nothing about improved stability at highway speeds or anything like that.

You could ask for an official clarification from the SEB, but I really don’t think it’s necessary. It could take months to get an answer. www.sebscca.com or www.soloeventsboard.com

Hope this helps. I’ll be glad to discuss this further.

-Doug
Doug G.
SCCA® Solo® Competition Manager
1-800-770-2055

From: Justin M.
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:02 PM
To: Doug G. <edit>
Subject: Solo Street Touring rules question

Hey Doug,

I had a question regarding a rule for Street Touring. The rule is below which is part of section 14.2.

F. Addition of spoilers, splitters, rear wings, bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and non-functional scoops/vents is allowed provided that either:
1. It is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a US model of the vehicle. (“Model” is defined in Section 12.)
2. It is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog for that vehicle for normal highway use. This does not allow for parts sold through a manufacturer’s performance catalog (e.g., Ford Racing, HPD, Mazdaspeed, Mopar Performance, Mugen, NISMO, SPT, TRD, etc). Parts must be installed as directed by the manufacturer. Exact replicas,including weight, from alternate sources are also permitted.

I installed a BRZ STi front under-spoiler (Subaru part) for my BRZ which is in STX. It comes from the Subaru accessory catalog titled "2017 BRZ Accessories."

http://www.subaru.com/content/dam/su...ccessories.pdf

Since this part is in an accessory catalog (not a performance catalog) and has been installed as directed by the manufacturer, it should be legal to use. Is this a fair assumption? I imagine if there was a protest against it, there is clear evidence in this rule that says it would be legal (because it is part of an accessory catalog, regardless if it is an "STi" branded part).

Thanks!
Justin

[renfield90]

Doug is unofficial. Want me to pull up the email where he stated the TRD parts were not legal on 2013s?

[justinco]

Originally Posted by renfield90

Doug is unofficial. Want me to pull up the email where he stated the TRD parts were not legal on 2013s?

Wow, I give up...