STX Rules and Setup Questions

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by conedodging

From Fastrack:

"Street Touring
#19962 Is this legal for a STX BRZ/FRS?
Per 14.10.B, OE traction control systems may be electronically disabled. Members are encouraged to understand the limits of the allowances, whereby 14.10.B only applies to OE traction control systems and such devices may perform no other functions."

Did I miss out on some sweet rules-gray-area cheating? :P

I've seen a few vids that sound like launch control is enabled, it's been a feature on ECUtek/OFT for years now and I'd interpret the rules as disallowing it as it's not an OE function.

[FastWhite]

I missed this. Now my interpretation of this ruling is: launch control is NOT legal, BUT you can now deactivate the TCS ELECTRONICALLY, i.e. Thru the tune to disable it entirely.
That is electronically to me.
Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[conedodging]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

I've seen a few vids that sound like launch control is enabled, it's been a feature on ECUtek/OFT for years now and I'd interpret the rules as disallowing it as it's not an OE function.

Huh? ECUtek launch control has nothing to do with traction control. TC needs to be off for LC to work. It's nothing more than telling the ecu to hold revs at a specific spot.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by conedodging

Huh? ECUtek launch control has nothing to do with traction control. TC needs to be off for LC to work. It's nothing more than telling the ecu to hold revs at a specific spot.

Ah my mistake, I thought it relied on the wheelspeed sensors to determine when to release the revs which would be using the ABS system for non-OE purposes. But no reason it can't be driven off the speedo off the transmission to avoid that.

And based on the Mini protest on the previous page, not like they could do anything about it anyway. :P

It's been proven that just because tc is 'off', doesn't mean it's OFF. Thanks unintended acceleration lawsuit.

[conedodging]

Well, as "off" as it could be. That's just my understanding of the ECUtek version. I could be wrong, but I've been dumb enough to forget to disable TC, use LC at the line and have it just absolutely fail to go at all, which makes me think it doesn't utilize the TC side of things.

I was more thinking the letter was about people modifying the TC parameters somehow to be actually useful (that plug'n'play motec?)

[2superblus]

it refers to a device that exists that will do the Pedal Dance for you aka Beastronix. Unofficially it would be legal for CS too.

[bslate3]

I know this has been talked about before, 245 vs 255. Has anyone tried 255 Re71's?

I just got a killer deal on a used set of 255/40r17 Re71's. I figured for the price it was worth trying out.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by bslate3

I know this has been talked about before, 245 vs 255. Has anyone tried 255 Re71's?

I just got a killer deal on a used set of 255/40r17 Re71's. I figured for the price it was worth trying out.

I've been running 255 and have a set of 245 going on as soon as I wear these out. I haven't compared on my car but often found getting heat into them to be more of a challenge than I observed with 245 on similarly fast (or slow) twins. We'll see what I think. Also curious to hear your thoughts once you've tried them.

[bslate3]

I'm new to STX. I've been hiding out in CS for 2 years then jumped in a couple STX prepped twins and drank the coolaid.

I'm collecting parts now and hope to have a decent setup for the start of next year and just focus on seat time and testing.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by bslate3

I know this has been talked about before, 245 vs 255. Has anyone tried 255 Re71's?

I just got a killer deal on a used set of 255/40r17 Re71's. I figured for the price it was worth trying out.

Someone posted a pic somewhere of 255 'stones vs 245 'stones, both mounted on 9" wheels. The difference in width was negligible and, by itself, not worth the added cost. The difference in diameter (and therefore gearing) is pretty real though.

I have not seen this comparison done on the Rival S.

The upside to the 245s is you sit a tiny bit lower. If you're willing to push up your rev limiter IMO there is no real need for longer gears. YMMV.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by bslate3

I'm new to STX. I've been hiding out in CS for 2 years then jumped in a couple STX prepped twins and drank the coolaid.

I'm collecting parts now and hope to have a decent setup for the start of next year and just focus on seat time and testing.

No worries, imo you should be pretty close with the tires and if you got a deal thrash them until they're gone.

I've also heard the story that they're harder to get heat into than the 245's for an 86 but shouldn't have a huge impact to developing your setup.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by renfield90

The difference in diameter (and therefore gearing) is pretty real though.

That one will be interesting for me. Very curious how it plays out

I should add, you also can not stack two 255's in the trunk, but you can with 245's (observed, I assume that's true for everyone)

[Twinz]

Originally Posted by cjd

That one will be interesting for me. Very curious how it plays out

I should add, you also can not stack two 255's in the trunk, but you can with 245's (observed, I assume that's true for everyone)

Have you tried letting air out of the tires for transport?

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by cjd

That one will be interesting for me. Very curious how it plays out

I should add, you also can not stack two 255's in the trunk, but you can with 245's (observed, I assume that's true for everyone)

Uhh...how? Assuming spare tire removal?

I much rather leave the spare tire in so I can have the cover there, which provides more flat/useful area to store tools and things. Flip the back seat down and stack two tires in the passenger area as forward as possible, and the other two tires flat behind it. Then you can put tools/supplies in the gaps between tires. Tetris is fun!