STX Rules and Setup Questions

[Grimlock]

Originally Posted by GTB/ZR-1

So, if I don't get LC arms by event, should I chuck corner weight in favor of even rear camber?

I'm not sure you wouldn't wait on the corner balancing and alignment.

Alignment doesn't affect corner balancing. So the proper series would go

1) Install LCAs
2) Corner Balance
3) Align

The only reason that 1 and 2 shouldn't be reversed is that your new LCAs would weigh different than your stock ones.

Or am I not understanding the question?

[Grimlock]

Originally Posted by GTB/ZR-1

Well, considering this was after corner bal/alignment--that would throw that out the window. Lol. I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out why such a disparity when ride height is very close. Bought car brand new & it's never been damaged. Strange & frustrating!

Some cars seem to have wonky side-to-side camber numbers from the factory, and they exaggerated when the car gets lowered. In my mind that's even more reason for good camber adjustment parts.

[GTB/ZR-1]

Originally Posted by Grimlock

I'm not sure you wouldn't wait on the corner balancing and alignment.

Alignment doesn't affect corner ban't be reversed is that your new LCAs would weigh different than your stock ones.

Or am I not understanding the question?

Kinda...

It was just aligned/corner-weighted yesterday, so those $ out the window if it gets tampered with.

[ABQautoxer]

I would not discard corner weighting for that kind of camber considering throwing it out of wack might only get you 1/2 way to even.

[GTB/ZR-1]

Originally Posted by ABQautoxer

I would not discard corner weighting for that kind of camber considering throwing it out of wack might only get you 1/2 way to even.

Good point, Tom. I'm not even sure what my stock specs looked like, since I figured I'd wait til the suspension parts came before I'd even care what the specs were. I may have the same issue as you did....

[neurokinetik]

Originally Posted by Grimlock

Some cars seem to have wonky side-to-side camber numbers from the factory, and they exaggerated when the car gets lowered. In my mind that's even more reason for good camber adjustment parts.

...and one more chance for me to get annoyed that they did not include the adjustability from the factory. I mean, all it takes is a slotted hole in the subframe, with a ridge for a cam bolt to ride against, HOW HARD CAN IT BE?

[Sam Strano]

Those aren't legal, sorry. Not even close to it. The entire center is metal, the stock bushings aren't that way. End of story.

As for LCA's. I've got Whiteline (or will as stock shows) and can do SPC also, and frankly Ithing that's the easiest way to deal with the camber issues. Then again, under Pallotta's car, also noted the bolt holes in the rear cradle bushings are oval... meaning Ibet the cradle can be slid some. Enough? I dunno, but it seems obvious to try. Also noticed a few other things he and I discussed. I'm sure they will make their way to his build thread soon.

[Sam Strano]

Originally Posted by Auto-Hauss

Oh yeah I'm sure they want the autoX sales. I believe this is why they are the only company making RCA with bushings instead of ball joints. Its just a risk right now to install them without knowing if they are illegal. I don't want to buy another set of stock bushings. IMO it should be ruled as adding more metal. The stock bushing is nothing but rubber except the outside ring. But we'll see.

Cheers aswell!
:happy0180:

I'm sure they want the sales too, and they have a lot of legal parts for various SCCA classes. Doesn't mean they all are (this, and their watts link for Mustangs are perfect examples). They are not building this stuff to SCCA rulesets. That's fine, its where a supplier who knows the sport and the rules well, is resource.

[enjoyminutemaid]

If SPC's are legal, do we think they'll hold up to autox abuse?

[EN2_Squirrel]

Originally Posted by enjoyminutemaid

If SPC's are legal, do we think they'll hold up to autox abuse?

I am hoping so. I have the SPCs.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

[Evil86]

Here is a rule question, is virtual limited slip through ecu management legal? I looked at the rules, and while changing the parameters of traction control illegal, virtual limited slip seems to be technically legal.

Btw, the feature is available in Ecutek.

[BlaineWasHere]

Originally Posted by Evil86

Here is a rule question, is virtual limited slip through ecu management legal? I looked at the rules, and while changing the parameters of traction control illegal, virtual limited slip seems to be technically legal.

Btw, the feature is available in Ecutek.

Is it something you actaully want? I've driven FWD cars with systems like this and I preferred an open diff.

[whataboutbob]

Originally Posted by GTB/ZR-1

Okay, ran into an issue with rear camber--which, evidently, is not adjustable...

LR 1.79
RR 2.55 (!)

Any one else having this issue?

What LC arms do I need (it seems)?

I ended up at -1.6 and -2.0 after the RaceCompEngineering springs in back.

[Evil86]

Originally Posted by BlaineWasHere

Is it something you actaully want? I've driven FWD cars with systems like this and I preferred an open diff.

I don't know if I would want it or not; my ecutek tuner told the option is available and he asked me if it was legal.

After reading the rule, virtual lsd would be contrary to the spirit of the rule, but it would technically within the letter of the law.

I was just wondering what you guys thought.