STX Rules and Setup Questions

[M0nk3y]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

But it says you can replace multiple lateral links to facilitate camber adjustment, to adjust camber on this car you must adjust the two lateral lower links of the multi-link suspension.

What do you mean by "they must remain OE"? I'm not installing a 'toe kit' I'm installing a piece of a 'camber kit' as sold by SPC.




I really do appreciate you fighting me on this, but the rules explicitly allow for multiple lateral links to be changed to achieve desired camber. The more I re-read it, the more I'm convinced.

What should the clarification letter be?

"Clarification on 14.8.H.1, can multiple lateral links of a multi-link suspension be changed from OE similar to what was clarified in letter #17733? This affects nearly all multi-link cars such as the 86/BRZ/FRS, WRX, Focus, Mustang, Camaro, non-trailing arm BMW's, 350Z/370Z, RX-8, etc. which typically already have some factory adjustment in one or more links and typically only require one additional modified link to achieve desired camber, however all cars would benefit from easier to adjust aftermarket lateral links in multiple locations where factory adjustment is deemed sub-par by the competitor."

I'm not trying to fight you. I'm trying to help.

But really, if you wanna show up at a National Event and try and contest the rule you and try to force someone to protest, you will not win.

Camber kits (also known as camber compensators) may be installed. 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. Alignment outside the factory specifications is allowed. The following restrictions apply:

1. On double/unequal arm (e.g., wishbone, multi-link) suspensions, only the upper arms OR lower arms may be modified or replaced, but not both. Non-integral longitudinal arms that primarily control fore/aft
wheel movement (e.g., trailing arm(s) or link(s) of a multi-link suspension) may not be replaced, changed, or modified)

No where in this rule does it state that toe-adjustment is legal with a replacement link. This rule is explicitly only applying to CAMBER, not toe. Note the words Camber Kits, Camber Compensators, Control Arm...etc.

Note 1. is a detail going more into detail that a upper and control arm cannot both be substituted, for majority of us the lower control arm is the preferred route to go. However, if you wanted you could leave the lower control arm in place and swap the upper control arm and maintain legality.

Toe adjustment is considered a link, and does not correct Camber (from section H) and thus is illegal.

Just a question. You think since 2013, and the amount of attention STX has received from National Competitors and Champions...toe links has slipped through the minds of everyone?

If you think I'm fighting, I'm not. It really isn't an argument. It's a statement....they are not legal.


If you want to write a letter, like I did...go ahead.

Mine was pretty simple:

Now with the SSC class being created and allowing Toe-Links/Arms as a legal modification to be done to the FRS/BRZ platform, I'd like the same to be done with ST.

Given SSC is a stepping stone from Stock into ST, it does not make sense to have modifications that a lesser prep'ed car is able to have while ST is not allowed these type of modifications.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

Toe adjustment is considered a link, and does not correct Camber (from section H) and thus is illegal.

You cannot adjust camber without adjusting both links, the same way you cannot adjust camber on an A-arm suspension without adjusting both bushings/cam bolts on the chassis side in a Miata. Camber and Toe are not separate parameters on the rear suspensions of most cars. Hell, moving the front link has more effect on camber than the rear link if you actually sit there and turn the bolts and measure it.

Both links are required to lengthen or shorten to achieve desired alignment, the spirit of 14.8.H is to allow competitors to achieve desired camber in an affordable fashion, I think we can both agree on that statement at least.

Whatever nomenclature is used to describe a part is irrelevant, for instance Subaru lists the parts as "Lateral Link Front" and "Lateral Link Rear" not a single part with "Toe" in the name in the entire rear suspension assembly.

https://parts.subaru.com/a/Subaru_20...10-201-01.html

As I keep repeating, 1 a-arm = multiple links, if you can change one a-arm you should be able to change the lateral links that are substitutes for that a-arm, it's defined in the SCCA rules that the two are equivalent.
14.8.H uses plural language combined with the previous letter that allows for multiple camber kits to be used I think changing the 'toe link' is on solid ground.

Originally Posted by M0nk3y

Just a question. You think since 2013, and the amount of attention STX has received from National Competitors and Champions...toe links has slipped through the minds of everyone?

I think most of people wanna save a buck and pay other people to do alignments or a minority of savvy individuals have access to a rack and don't worry about it when the OE is adequate. Add in word of mouth that you can only change one and that dissuades most people from digging further, I think that statement is made within the first 10 pages of this very thread and any interpreted open-endedness has been around since street touring was started.

Here's how the rule was written for 2003:

17.8.E Camber kits may be installed on vehicles that do not have McPherson strut type suspensions. These kits may include replacement control arms or other parts that are designed specifically to compensate for camber changes resulting from lowering the car. These parts must use the original attachment points.

http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Rule...t_touring.html


People who have been doing this long enough to fight near the pointy end have usually figured out that the magic isn't in a friggin' toe link. We're not changing geometry here, just making it easier to adjust.


I appreciate you writing a letter, it's concise and to the point and open ended, nothing else to do but wait and see what the response is, and none of my grumbling will change that so I won't bother. Either multiple lateral links were always allowed or they weren't.

[Silver Ignition]

I can see both arguments equally and still cant figure out what side to be on haha


I'm drawn back by "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't"


cant wait to hear what SEB says...

[DocWalt]

IMO an "a-arm" is the lower link (camber arm) and the trailing arm (which you can't change anyway)... toe arm is completely unrelated.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by DocWalt

IMO an "a-arm" is the lower link (camber arm) and the trailing arm (which you can't change anyway)... toe arm is completely unrelated.

I'd agree with you if an a-arm/double wishbone suspension had a toe arm, but it doesn't.

1 wishbone controls suspension location and orientation in all three directions with 2 wishbones needed for full suspension control, the 86's multi-link uses 3 links to accomplish the same feat as a single wishbone with an upper wishbone finishing off the assembly. The "front lateral link" (aka toe arm) is not 'unrelated' at all, it serves the exact same function to adjust alignment as the 'front' wishbone bushing does on a double-wishbone car.

[Silver Ignition]

Eh sorry strat I think its a reach...it'd take some real semantics and verbal gymnastics to appeal a protest at a national event for toe arms...

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Silver Ignition

Eh sorry strat I think its a reach...it'd take some real semantics and verbal gymnastics to appeal a protest at a national event for toe arms...

It's not semantics or verbal gymnastics, it's specifically in the rule book that multi-link and double wishbone/a-arm suspension are equivalent and fall under the same rules.

Note: Many modern suspension designs known by other names, actually function as double A-arm designs. These include the rear suspensions on 1988-on Honda Civic/Integra, Chrysler/Plymouth/Dodge Neon, BMW E36, and most “multi-link” and are covered by Section 14.8.H.1.

I find it baffling to claim that the 86's two lateral links aren't equivalent to an a-arm in say an MX-5, the alignment steps are the exact same as posted above (lengthen/shorten a link/bushing to achieve desired camber/toe), they perform the exact same function (aside from the necessary longitudinal support provided by the trailing arm in the 86).

Whether or not it's legal is certainly a different story, I've played that game before, I won't argue with the results of the letter written by @M0nk3y I'd probably agree wholeheartedly updating the wording if the intent isn't coming across in the current language.

At this point I only want to spread knowledge about suspension design.



And jeez, I just want to DIY alignment without pulling my hair out, I'm not actually trying to get a competitive advantage (aside from making future test and tunes more effective).

[Silver Ignition]

I’m rooting for toe arms being legal. My left side eccentric is frozen to the bolt in the rear...

[jbailey8748]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

And jeez, I just want to DIY alignment without pulling my hair out, I'm not actually trying to get a competitive advantage (aside from making future test and tunes more effective).

This exactly. It's not that there's a performance gain to be had. The left and right side arms stupidly designed, stamped with and keyed eccentric washer are broke and no longer work properly. Replacing it with a turnbuckle style link would make it better, and easier to adjust on the fly.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[e1_griego]

I'm confident I know the answer to my question already, but what are the current STX lca options that are available?

Racer-X doesn't sell poly any more. And isn't really wanting to play ball on selling me replacement bushings.

Velox
RS-R
SPC/Dif bushings
SPL with steinjager poly

Is there a middle ground between $550-600 and the SPC/Dif bushing setup that I'm missing?

[G_Ride]

Originally Posted by e1_griego

I'm confident I know the answer to my question already, but what are the current STX lca options that are available?

Racer-X doesn't sell poly any more. And isn't really wanting to play ball on selling me replacement bushings.

Velox
RS-R
SPC/Dif bushings
SPL with steinjager poly

Is there a middle ground between $550-600 and the SPC/Dif bushing setup that I'm missing?

The Whiteline LCAs are also legal

[M0nk3y]

Originally Posted by e1_griego

I'm confident I know the answer to my question already, but what are the current STX lca options that are available?

Racer-X doesn't sell poly any more. And isn't really wanting to play ball on selling me replacement bushings.

Velox
RS-R
SPC/Dif bushings
SPL with steinjager poly

Is there a middle ground between $550-600 and the SPC/Dif bushing setup that I'm missing?

Really? Shame on RacerX. I love my arms from them.

They had a Instagram post about making the arms in a different material and offering bushings again. Guess that never took off.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[e1_griego]

I think I'm must going to have a buddy make some new bushing cups for them, and I grabbed some DIF bushings to use.

Will update once everything is back together.

Racer-x said I could send them by cups back to rebush, and I've asked twice for an invoice/cost and haven't heard back.

[strat61caster]

Shame on Racer-X they were the only <$500 LCA with an ST* bushing off the shelf when I bought mine aside from modifying an SPC.

If I had to replace them I'd do the same thing, find some poly bushings to press in.

But yeah I think you listed everything except the Whiteline... which as far as I can tell is basically SPC+Dif bushing in one box.