![]() |
#2857 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: 2017 BRZ
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,291
Thanks: 1,260
Thanked 2,933 Times in 1,716 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2858 | |
-
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: '13 FRS - STX
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,382
Thanks: 13,780
Thanked 9,501 Times in 5,012 Posts
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by strat61caster; 09-06-2017 at 12:22 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2859 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: 2017 BRZ
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,291
Thanks: 1,260
Thanked 2,933 Times in 1,716 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2860 | |
-
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: '13 FRS - STX
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,382
Thanks: 13,780
Thanked 9,501 Times in 5,012 Posts
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by strat61caster; 09-06-2017 at 12:54 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2861 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: 2017 BRZ
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,291
Thanks: 1,260
Thanked 2,933 Times in 1,716 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to cjd For This Useful Post: | strat61caster (09-06-2017) |
![]() |
#2862 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Drives: 2016 Scion FRS / Chevy Colorado
Location: Ohio
Posts: 662
Thanks: 51
Thanked 567 Times in 317 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
Be careful. Just because it's allowed in SSC doesn't mean it's allowed in STX. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Kyle H. - #89 STX
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to M0nk3y For This Useful Post: | cjd (09-06-2017), strat61caster (09-06-2017) |
![]() |
#2863 | |
-
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: '13 FRS - STX
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,382
Thanks: 13,780
Thanked 9,501 Times in 5,012 Posts
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
![]() 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. Last edited by strat61caster; 09-06-2017 at 06:24 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2864 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Drives: 2016 Scion FRS / Chevy Colorado
Location: Ohio
Posts: 662
Thanks: 51
Thanked 567 Times in 317 Posts
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Kyle H. - #89 STX
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2865 |
-
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: '13 FRS - STX
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,382
Thanks: 13,780
Thanked 9,501 Times in 5,012 Posts
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2866 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: 2017 BRZ
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,291
Thanks: 1,260
Thanked 2,933 Times in 1,716 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
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...) |
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to cjd For This Useful Post: | strat61caster (09-06-2017) |
![]() |
#2867 | ||
-
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: '13 FRS - STX
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,382
Thanks: 13,780
Thanked 9,501 Times in 5,012 Posts
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
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 Quote:
Last edited by strat61caster; 09-06-2017 at 06:07 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to strat61caster For This Useful Post: | cjd (09-06-2017) |
![]() |
#2868 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: 2017 BRZ
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,291
Thanks: 1,260
Thanked 2,933 Times in 1,716 Posts
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
|
@strat61caster thanks for the follow up. What makes the toe arm part of the lower, rather than upper arm?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2869 |
Stiggasaurus Rex
Join Date: May 2014
Drives: '14 WRB Subaru BRZ 6MT
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 170
Thanks: 104
Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
|
Good luck to everyone in STX for tomorrow and Friday!!
__________________
meh.
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to NJ10 For This Useful Post: | strat61caster (09-06-2017) |
![]() |
#2870 | |
-
Join Date: Nov 2012
Drives: '13 FRS - STX
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 10,382
Thanks: 13,780
Thanked 9,501 Times in 5,012 Posts
Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by strat61caster; 09-06-2017 at 09:05 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to strat61caster For This Useful Post: | cjd (09-06-2017) |
|
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thoughts on a "component" setup with a 3.5" dash and 6.5" door setup? | PatrickSAN | Electronics | Audio | NAV | Infotainment | 22 | 11-14-2012 03:12 PM |
SCCA sway bar rules | gmookher | Suspension | Chassis | Brakes -- Sponsored by 949 Racing | 0 | 09-01-2012 07:48 PM |
Suggestion for vendor rules... | Tainen | Site Announcements / Questions / Issues | 31 | 08-15-2012 02:53 PM |
Rules for posting in this section | Hachiroku | User/Vendor/Sponsor Reviews, Feedback, Comments | 0 | 06-25-2012 12:02 PM |