SCCA Solo C Street Discussion

[ksconekiller]

I suggest that when you get what you feel is proper documentation, contact Doug Gill at SCCA. He will tell you if it's legal, and that will save you lots of time, money and hassle. Also, if these are declared street-class legal, I'm sure any car with them is going to be moved to BS. It will be like the MX5 vs. MX5 MS-R that also run in CS & BS respectively. So you're really not gaining anything by going to a higher class.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by ksconekiller

I suggest that when you get what you feel is proper documentation, contact Doug Gill at SCCA. He will tell you if it's legal, and that will save you lots of time, money and hassle. Also, if these are declared street-class legal, I'm sure any car with them is going to be moved to BS. It will be like the MX5 vs. MX5 MS-R that also run in CS & BS respectively. So you're really not gaining anything by going to a higher class.

That would require a rule change...which would require a proposal in fast track, followed by member comment, followed by approval for the following calendar year. Any such change would be all or nothing i.e. all FRS base models to BS, because these are line item options we're talking about - not an option package or trim level. Opening up policing of line item options is a can of worms the SAC/SEB is not going to open.

[xwd]

Well they can't just move the car this year, but they can for next year or add/change a rule to make the accessories illegal.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by klittl06

Anyone mind posting the part numbers? I asked via live chat but was told the didn't know lol.

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

TRD SPRING PKG, P/N: PTR07-18130
TRD SWAY PKG, P/N: PTR11-18130

.

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by renfield90

Are you going to post these docs at some point or is there some confirmation you're still waiting for?

As far as I'm concerned, if you have the documentation to prove legality and you carry it with you in case of protest, the part is legal.

Waiting for a response from SAC/SEB. I compiled a good amount of information, but would rather confirm what is needed at a minimum for documentation. At this point most of my info is focused on MY2015 because it was easiest to get. I am 100% sure I will win a protest with against my MY2015. Will post once I get their response.

For earlier models, I only have printed history of my chat with customer service and Scion dealer internal database print outs that confirm the sways and springs were available for MY2013/2014 as well. I have sent an email request to TRD and will pull some strings to see if I can get a letter from Toyota to confirm what their customer service is saying and what the Scion internal parts database is indicating. Will work on that this week.

Looks like only for model year 2015 that the marketing department finally got things together and included the parts in the official public broshures. My guess would be that the parts werent available until the end of MY2013 and by then the 2014 broshures were already printed and ready to go. I think more digging is needed for 2013 and 2014 models for SCCA purposes, though. If we could just get a letter from Toyota, it would solve all of this for all eligible years.

[TrqlessWonder]

Originally Posted by renfield90

That would require a rule change...which would require a proposal in fast track, followed by member comment, followed by approval for the following calendar year. Any such change would be all or nothing i.e. all FRS base models to BS, because these are line item options we're talking about - not an option package or trim level. Opening up policing of line item options is a can of worms the SAC/SEB is not going to open.

Not necessarily, I don't think. This is somewhat new (previously unknown, at least) information, and I don't think it would be SEB overrreach to issue a clarification that TRD items aren't allowed. That, and/or adding a line for cars with TRD springs, calling it a new classification, and putting them in BS.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[klittl06]

Originally Posted by renfield90

.

Ty

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by TrqlessWonder

Not necessarily, I don't think. This is somewhat new (previously unknown, at least) information, and I don't think it would be SEB overrreach to issue a clarification that TRD items aren't allowed. That, and/or adding a line for cars with TRD springs, calling it a new classification, and putting them in BS.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Stop the speculation and fear mongering.

Go look at what happened to the Mini's. Did they get reclassed mid-season?

[xwd]

They aren't moving anything this year. I don't think they can even do anything under the current rule structure.

These parts didn't exist until around July 2013 so saying it could apply to a 2013 might be a bit of a stretch. If it didn't show up in a specific accessory catalog as an orderable port-installed option for that year, I think people are going to be SIL.

[renfield90]

Originally Posted by dwx

They aren't moving anything this year. I don't think they can even do anything under the current rule structure.

These parts didn't exist until around July 2013 so saying it could apply to a 2013 might be a bit of a stretch. If it didn't show up in a specific accessory catalog as an orderable port-installed option for that year, I think people are going to be SIL.

Are you sure? I've seen forum posts discussing these part numbers from far earlier than that. See here: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29175

As long as you could've hypothetically ordered the car with the part as an option, it's legal. Remember the MX-5 MSR debacle when no MSRs were actually every delivered to the showroom as an MSR. You could order it with those parts, and they were listed as "port installed," and that's all that was needed for legality.

[TrqlessWonder]

Originally Posted by simpleisbest

Stop the speculation and fear mongering.

Go look at what happened to the Mini's. Did they get reclassed mid-season?

No fear mongering. But a pinch of speculation. I like to call it being realistic. At the same time, not so sure you should already be taking a victory lap on this one either. While it is certainly close to the line as gray areas go, as far as I can tell, it's ambiguous enough to be legal, and if the right documentation exists, would be legal. I get the feeling that letters on manufacturer letterhead or actual monroney stickers showing it would be sufficient. That this is stirring up this much discussion and debate should indicate to you that it's neither a small nor done deal, in the grand scheme.

Many more ways than one to skin a cat/respond to an issue, some outlined above. Only after you see an official ruling/fastrack clarification, is there *some* resolution to the question. Not sure where they'll go on this issue, but to suggest that you've got the rulesmakers painted in a corner with no recourse (especially the SEB) strikes me as naive. Add in the "unintended consequences" aspect, and it starts to make some sense to be careful what you wish for.

Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

[AustinTX]

Congratulations to Ricardo Quinonez for the come from behind victory in CS at the San Diego tour. Looks like the Bridgestones are working well!

[simpleisbest]

Originally Posted by TrqlessWonder

While it is certainly close to the line as gray areas go, as far as I can tell, it's ambiguous enough to be legal, and if the right documentation exists, would be legal.

Did you even talk to a Scion dealer prior to writing your post or forming your opinion?

Call your local Scion dealer and ask, or chat with customer service. Talk to someone who will actually look into the database for you and they will all confirm that the PNs are listed in the database as port options. There is nothing "grey" here. Its pretty black/white.

Like I said before, its not about verification, its about documentation from this point. The documentation will surface eventually.

Also, please stop the "careful what you wished for" BS. I didn't wish for it. It was just a reality that no one had previously uncovered. What would rather prefer? This info in the open and clarified in advance or some guy pulling up to you at Nats with these and YOU unprepared?

I dont know about you, but I would rather start dealing with the reality of the now vs crying about "what may be".

[xwd]

Originally Posted by renfield90

Are you sure? I've seen forum posts discussing these part numbers from far earlier than that. See here: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29175

As long as you could've hypothetically ordered the car with the part as an option, it's legal. Remember the MX-5 MSR debacle when no MSRs were actually every delivered to the showroom as an MSR. You could order it with those parts, and they were listed as "port installed," and that's all that was needed for legality.

They weren't actually available until around July of 2013. The car has been around since April of 2012. They also had various "stop sales" on them for long periods of times, but I don't think that matters much. Those were due to stock shortage. The springs/swaybars are just rebranded Eibach items.

The MSR/Z0K is a whole different story, that is an entirely different package/model of car which can be moved as a single item like it has been. When you have these line item port installed options which change the performance of the car, it's a different thing.