May Fastrack....Stock Class Beware

[Scooby South]

May fastrack... STOCK Class proposals to the SEB *important* to those that want to run Stock

[Dezoris]

What am I missing don't see anything too earth shattering in there for CS/RTR?

[edj]

the updated proposal is much better than the original and should please the
largest number of Stock/RT drivers. there will still be a few unhappy campers
but you can't please everybody.

[Scooby South]

^^^^ this..

[ViperASR]

Originally Posted by edj

the updated proposal is much better than the original and should please the
largest number of Stock/RT drivers. there will still be a few unhappy campers
but you can't please everybody.

I'm a big fan of the updated proposal, I think it is a good move for the sport, as well as a way to better retain novices who bring out their daily drivers. There will obviously be people who take the rules to the extreme (-4 degrees of camber with massive front bars), but I think it will be very interesting to see what proves to be fast.

I have been offered a national co-drive in a Street BRZ, and I will probably take them up on the offer over my STR s2000, just to show support for the changes. If I didn't absolutely love the STR car and allowed mods, I'd be in a Street car of my own. Time to get off eBay...

[Sccabrz192]

:happy0180:

The only thing I wish they'd have included was a sunset rule opportunity for the new S-R designations per each classes participation. But I'll admit that is a bit of a selfish wish, and would assume most wouldn't last very long. Current FS seems to be the last group still a bit screwed by this change... which had dwindling participation recently anyway.

But otherwise, very much in favor of this update now. I like the re-writing of the camber allowance, though I see some people still having complaints that the new rule still remains strut-type only (wont see us complaining though hehe). I think the ESC/TC defeat rule is written better, and time will tell if it is still too open ended and permits the ability to hide other competitive-advantage fanciness.

Still not sure if I want to run this new "S" class long term, but I like the thought that I could run SR in 2014 and have an extra year of planning if I wanted to put together funding for a STX or maybe even a SP build.

35 for SSR 2 straight years seems steep for the sunset clause, but with numbers normally 60+, shouldnt be an issue.

[Scooby South]

Totally Agree Tim.. Some of the Hardcores are already petitioning the board for this to let this die a quick death. Sad as I think its a Great Proposal.

[Sccabrz192]

Originally Posted by Scooby South

Totally Agree Tim.. Some of the Hardcores are already petitioning the board for this to let this die a quick death. Sad as I think its a Great Proposal.

I should say support this proposal under the guise that the R-comp ban is an inevitability.

[NYC BRZ]

So really what was changed other than letting the SS drivers who complained hard enough get their way since they would never be able to keep traction on street tires and still be competitive.

[Sccabrz192]

Originally Posted by NYC BRZ

So really what was changed other than letting the SS drivers who complained hard enough get their way since they would never be able to keep traction on street tires and still be competitive.

Really?
You can read the cliff notes at the top of the fastrack or...

No second sway bar
No ban of the remote reservoir dampers
Clarification on strut camber allowances to prevent excessive modification including preventing ride height modification
Further clarification of TCS/ESC disabiling methods
No Limited SP prep
An additional year of R-Comps
Long term SSR plan

Sooo they made quite a few adjustments based on member feedback.

[trippinbillies40]

Love the proposal as it stands now. Also love that we get camber and the Miatas don't

[whataboutbob]

Does 13.10 E allow for the Crawford AOS?

"The installation of oil catch tanks is allowed provided the function of the PCV system is not altered"

If not, I need to sell mine...

[NYC BRZ]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

Really?
You can read the cliff notes at the top of the fastrack or...

No second sway bar
No ban of the remote reservoir dampers
Clarification on strut camber allowances to prevent excessive modification including preventing ride height modification
Further clarification of TCS/ESC disabiling methods
No Limited SP prep
An additional year of R-Comps
Long term SSR plan

Sooo they made quite a few adjustments based on member feedback.

LOL actually after posting this I saw that there were notes and a bunch of modifications in red. I was a little quick to comment. The proposal looks good. I still wish we were able to add width to the wheels. Lightweight 17x7 5x100 are limited in choices. Thanks for clarifying.

[MTCRX]

Originally Posted by Sccabrz192

Really?
You can read the cliff notes at the top of the fastrack or...

No second sway bar
No ban of the remote reservoir dampers
Clarification on strut camber allowances to prevent excessive modification including preventing ride height modification
Further clarification of TCS/ESC disabiling methods
No Limited SP prep
An additional year of R-Comps
Long term SSR plan

Sooo they made quite a few adjustments based on member feedback.

I am liking this proposal better as it advances through reviews. I think they are doing a good job. I do have a question though; how are remote reservoir dampers legal? As I understand the rules, the shocks must be like OEM but now you can have adjustable shocks. OEM shocks do not have remote reservoirs and if it doesn't say you can, you can't. Where am I missing the wording that allows them? And, are they really that much better?