http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=78

Full:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-june.pdf

Solo:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-june-solo.pdf


The Solo Events Board met by conference call on April 23. Attending were SEB members Dave Whitworth, Tina Reeves, Jason Isley,
Steve Wynveen, Erik Strelnieks, and Ron Bauer; Lisa Noble and RJ Gordy of the BOD; and Brian Harmer and Doug Gill of the National
Staff. These minutes are presented in topical order rather than the order discussed.
Unless noted otherwise the effective date for all rule, class, and listing change proposals herein is 1/1/2009.
GENERAL
• In conjunction with the previously published change proposals regarding wing area measurement (12.9), the following rule
change proposals are submitted for member comment:
- Change 16.1.L. (SM/SM2) first paragraph, and Appendix A, Prepared Class X item 1.c. first two paragraphs, to:
“Aerodynamic Aids: Wings may be added, removed, or modified. Non OE wings may only be attached to the rear deck/hatch
area behind the centerline of the rear axle. The total combined surface area of all wings shall not exceed 8 square feet as
calculated per section 12.9. The number of wing elements is limited to 2.”
- Change 14.2.F. ST wording to: “Surface area of all splitters, spoilers, and rear wing (see section 12.9) shall not exceed 5
square feet in sum total.”
• The SEB has recommended to the BOD that Dave Newman be approved as the NE Division Solo Events Steward.
• The SEB has recommended the approval of John Scheier as RM Division Solo Safety Steward.
STREET TOURING
• The following set of rule change proposals is submitted per the STAC for member comment:
- Replace 14.12.7 with:
“Non-standard brake rotors may be used provided they are of equal or larger dimensions (diameter and thickness) and made
of ferrous material (e.g. iron). Aluminum rotor hats are allowed. Cars originally equipped with solid (non-vented) rotors may
utilize vented rotors. Cross-drilled and/or slotted brake rotors may be fitted provided all such voids are within the disc area,
and comprise no more than 10% of that area.
Brake calipers and mounting brackets may be replaced provided they bolt to the standard locations and the number of pistons
is equal to or greater than standard.
Drum brakes may be replaced with disc brakes of a diameter equal to or greater than the inside diameter of the standard
drum. Such conversions must be bolted, not welded to the axle/trailing arm/upright.
Changes to backing plates/dust shields/brake lines to accommodate these changes are permitted but may serve no other
purpose.”
- Also replace 14.6.A with:
“Cross-drilled and/or slotted brake rotors may be fitted (same size/type/material as standard) provided all such voids are
within the disc area, and comprise no more than 10% of that area.”
• The STAC is seeking member feedback on the following listing change proposal: Remove the Mazda RX-8 from the STX exclusion
list (ref. 08-056).
STREET PREPARED
• The SPAC and SEB are seeking member input on each of the following class listing change proposals:
- Move from CSP to DSP:
Dodge SRT-4 (ref. 08-014)
- Move from DSP to FSP:
Dodge Neon, 2000-2005
Dodge/Plymouth Neon, 1994-1999, SOHC
Dodge/Plymouth Neon, 1994-1999, DOHC
- Add to FSP (ref. 08-011):
SCCA Fastrack News June 2008 Page 22
Toyota Corolla, AE86 RWD (all)
Toyota Corolla, AE92 FWD (all)
- Move from ASP to BSP:
BMW M3 (E46)
- Consolidate the last two lines of the C4 Corvette listings in BSP into one which would read:
“Corvette C4 (all, 84-96)” (ref. 07-431)
Note: This would permit update/backdate among all C4s including the ZR-1 version.
- Move from ASP to BSP:
Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Redline (ref. 08-084)
• The following rule change proposal is submitted for member comment:
Change 15.2.H to read:
“Airbags may be electronically disabled but not removed.”
• The SPAC is not at this time recommending any changes with regard to the SP classification of the Mitsubishi Evolution and
Subaru WRX STI. It is the committee’s position that other recommended changes will help competitiveness for some of the other existing
cars in BSP.
• The previously published rule change proposal concerning motor mounts (ref. 08-166) will be recommended to the BOD by
the SEB.

NOT RECOMMENDED
• Stock: Move 1993-95 RX-7 from SS to AS (ref. 08-247)
• ST: Remove the BMW M3 (E36) exclusion from STX (ref. 08-120, 08-212)
• ST: Factory fog light removal (ref. 08-100, 08-101)
• ST: Emissions rule change (ref. 08-124)
• SP: Roll bars (ref. 08-108)
• SP: Weight limits (ref. 08-109)
• SP: Bushing materials (ref. 08-168)
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE FOR FOLLOWUP
• SAC: Scion xB, Nissan Versa, SSF ratings
TECH BULLETINS
1. Stock: Per the SAC, the Lotus Sport Suspension (currently known as the Sport Pack) is a factory option package for the
Lotus Elise which is eligible for Stock category competition. It should not be confused with the 2006 Lotus Sport Elise, which
is a limited-production model (50 cars) developed by Lotus Sport (a division of Lotus Cars which develops high performance
upgrade components for Lotus vehicles).
Note: This will be added to Appendix F, and a reference to it will accompany the Appendix A Elise listing in Stock.
2. Stock: The following models are added to the Stock exclusion list:
Lotus Elise Supercharged (‘08+)
Dodge Viper (‘08+)
Comment: The SAC wishes to maintain the status quo in SS at this time. The SAC will propose multiple options to bring these
cars into SS in 2009.
3. Stock: The following new listings, recommended by the SAC and effective immediately upon publication, are added to the
Stock classes as noted:
BMW M3 (E90) SS
SCCA Fastrack News June 2008 Page 31
BMW 335 Xi FS
Lexus IS-F SS
4. Street Prepared: Per the SPAC the following new listings, effective immediately upon publication, are added in Appendix A:
BMW 335, 328 (‘06+) BSP
BMW 135, 128 (‘08+) BSP
5. Street Prepared: Per the SPAC, the listing for the M-Technic in BSP is invalid and will be removed (ref. 08-243).
Comment: Careful research has shown that the “M-Technic” listing is erroneous; “M-Technic” was simply an appearance
package including the “M” appearance items.

My 17 page ST emissions proposal was not recommended, with absolutely no other mention, discussion, or attempts to fix some of the flaws in the rules that the proposal pointed out. Very disappointing :diaf:

Lots of interesting stuff in there though.

The SPAC is not at this time recommending any changes with regard to the SP classification of the Mitsubishi Evolution and
Subaru WRX STI. It is the committee’s position that other recommended changes will help competitiveness for some of the other existing
cars in BSP

F'in' good. :D

Solstice and redline now to BSP...iiiiiinteresting...not sure I know enough about them to comment there.

I'm getting my ass kicked locally by a Solstice in AS and now I can do it all again next year if I move to BSP :).

A few comments:

I like the idea of a limited prep GP car for solo use. Most of the existing GP cars are old British cars running full tilt motors. Having a limited prep VW or CRX will help birng people into the P category. Hell, a GP limited prep 1st gen CRX would prove a great place to get started in Prepared, and then decided if you want to go crazy in EP or XP. And talk about a fun ow cost car that could kill at local/regional level too. I bet you could build a GP CRX for less than a STS2 CRX.

I like how the 135 is a BSP car. I wonder how many other DS cars go to BSP?

I'm suprised the E36 to STX got shot down, as it seemed to have a lot of support.

No mention of changing maximum tire sizes in STX/U classes.

Existing BSP cars are getting faster, instead of kicking the EVO/STi up to ASP.

Chris H.

A few comments:

Existing BSP cars are getting faster, instead of kicking the EVO/STi up to ASP.

Well, those changes are out for member comment. So... if you wrote in for the Evo/STi to stay in BSP, you should also write in to adopt these changes.

Karen

I like how the 135 is a BSP car. I wonder how many other DS cars go to BSP?
+1 Can't think of another one. :rolleyes:

+1 Can't think of another one. :rolleyes:

Crossfire

Neon to FSP. That's interesting.

+1 Can't think of another one. :rolleyes:

There are HS cars that go to CSP and you don't see me crying.:p:banana:

Are there any B-stock cars in STX now or would the RX8 be the first?

Are there any B-stock cars in STX now or would the RX8 be the first?

E30 M3.

Ah, thankye.

Welp, letter sent.

Crossfire
Forgot about that car. Is the regular Crossfire on the same or separate line as the Crossfire SRT-6 in BSP?

P.S. My letter has been sent as well. :)

Ah, thankye.

Welp, letter sent.

Me too...

RX-8 to STX by itself, no. RX-8 to STX with the 2.5L WRX, E36 M3, SRT-4, and officially adding the Lancer Ralliart, absolutely!

Allowing one of them to class down and dominate is inappropriate. Moving them as a group would keep any one car from running away from the competition, though most of them will render the current cars uncompetitive. But that's part of changing times, technology, and making changes for the betterment of competition.

RX-8 to STX by itself, no. RX-8 to STX with the 2.5L WRX, E36 M3, SRT-4, and officially adding the Lancer Ralliart, absolutely!

The difference between those cars is that the rx-8 and the E36 M3 are legal by the rules but excluded by the exclusion list while the SRT4 and 2.5L WRX are both over the engine size limits for the class. To make them legal you would need to bump up the Forced Induction limit on STX to 2.5L and then exclude any other cars that would accidentally make legal. The Lancer Ralliart with the 2.0L is legal until excluded from the class.

Forgot about that car. Is the regular Crossfire on the same or separate line as the Crossfire SRT-6 in BSP?

Same line but it is in the class.

Me too...

RX-8 to STX by itself, no. RX-8 to STX with the 2.5L WRX, E36 M3, SRT-4, and officially adding the Lancer Ralliart, absolutely!

Allowing one of them to class down and dominate is inappropriate. Moving them as a group would keep any one car from running away from the competition, though most of them will render the current cars uncompetitive. But that's part of changing times, technology, and making changes for the betterment of competition.Just sent this to Doug:

Doug/STAC/SEB:

I respectuflly disagree with having the RX8 removed from the STX exclusion list. Having had one of these cars and did fairly well at nationals in BS, and having competed in STX and won it once, I believe the RX8 would be too fast for STX, especially with the 16x engine coming out in the near future.

BS ran heat 4 and STX heat 5 on the same day, same course. IMHO, that's as close as you're gonna get to compare unless they ran same heat.

Nats results last year... BS: 91.615. STX: 92.716. That's over 1.1 seconds.

IMHO, the mods allowed in STX for the RX8 should make the RX8 only *slightly* slower than the stock version when you factor in lightening capabilities, power adders that are available now vs a couple years ago, fully adjustable shocks, rear sway bar etc...

The RX8 stil should not be in STX. If looking at and considering past results, very few have tried a serious effort in STU with an RX8. And while the results were bad for those that tried, one or two attempts by relatively few individuals shouldn't be grounds to moving a car to an easier class.


I wonder... *who* requested the removal from STX exclusion. :lol:

--kC

http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/301633.aspx

For anyone who wants to give feedback on the ST* emissions stuff.

If my proposal makes no sense, tell me :)

Just sent this to Doug:




I wonder... *who* requested the removal from STX exclusion. :lol:

--kC

Your letter was about the same as mine.

Its hard to say its uncompetitive in STU when no one has really built one into a true STU competitor.

I respectfully feel the RX-8 should be allowed in STX. Power-wise, with a good ST* tune, it's down ~100whp to an STi/Evo and it'll be lucky to make 160wtq (I think Sipe made 220whp/160wtq on his ST* tune). It just can't dig out of slow corners as fast as an E36 M3. From some dyno graphs I've seen of STX WRXs they make ~230whp (race gas tune), so power-wise a tuned RX-8 would fit in nicely with the class.

STX WRX's can get down to the low 2,900lb range iirc, while an ST* RX-8 would be in the 2,700lb range. Both cars would be limited to 8" wheels with 245 tires, and while the WRX will have the straight line traction advantage, the RX-8 will have an advantage in the corners. So imho, it'll be course-dependent which one would come out on top.

Btw, discussing the 16X renesis at this point would be pointless as we have no solid hp/tq numbers and know very little about what other improvements the 2010/2011 RX-8 might have. Heck, that car may be classed in A-stock, in which case it would not be eligible for STX anyway. ;)

-Chike (still a Subaru fanboi)

Same line but it is in the class.
Well then that changes things in my book. They're putting a DS car (Crossfire) on the same line as an AS car (Crossfire SRT-6).

The 135i is a DS car classed in BSP on its own line.

Its hard to say its uncompetitive in STU when no one has really built one into a true STU competitor.

that would be incorrect.

remember gang, Mark Sipe >*

And his recent results in BS at San Diego and El Toro against Isley show how good he is. :rolleyes: 3 seconds behind over two days at both events? Yeah, he's a worthy benchmark.

I fail to see why specifically allowing the 2.5L WRX/LegacyGT or the SRT-4 in STX is wrong just because they have over 2.0L engines, when the EVO was specifically excluded from STX, even though it has a 2.0L engine...

I figure someday, someone will figure out that engine displacement isn't a good way to class things, as little as that seems to matter in our world..

Well then that changes things in my book. They're putting a DS car (Crossfire) on the same line as an AS car (Crossfire SRT-6).

The 135i is a DS car classed in BSP on its own line.

I might as well speak up since I was the one that instigated that classing. I wanted them to class the Crossfire in CSP and the SRT-6 in BSP but the Crossfire does not fit into the theme of CSP good enough so they put it on the same line as the SRT-6 so you can run the supercharged engine mated to the 6 speed manual from the NA version legally. Either way there is no way an NA Crossfire could keep up in BSP without the engine swap.

I figure someday, someone will figure out that engine displacement isn't a good way to class things, as little as that seems to matter in our world..


I agree... but I can see why the rule was made that way (to appear fair).

My suggestion would be an INCLUSION list, instead of antiquated displacement rules. This would be a list of cars that are eligible for a class. Not on the list, not included.

Are there any B-stock cars in STX now or would the RX8 be the first?
I know someone already mentioned the E30 M3, but isn't it just AS cars that are automatically excluded from STX??? I always thought that was the reasoning behind the 2.0L Lancer Evo being excluded from STX...
And his recent results in BS at San Diego and El Toro against Isley show how good he is. :rolleyes: 3 seconds behind over two days at both events? Yeah, he's a worthy benchmark.
I'll be the first one to say that Sipe is a royal jackarse. However, he has two national trophies to his name and those two national events in '08 were his first driving a BS RX-8 (on r-comps) after spending 1.5 seasons in STU.
I might as well speak up since I was the one that instigated that classing. I wanted them to class the Crossfire in CSP and the SRT-6 in BSP but the Crossfire does not fit into the theme of CSP good enough so they put it on the same line as the SRT-6 so you can run the supercharged engine mated to the 6 speed manual from the NA version legally. Either way there is no way an NA Crossfire could keep up in BSP without the engine swap.
Understood. My point only was that a DS car (Crossfire) was placed on the same line as an AS car (SRT-6) and put in BSP. That's like placing the DS WRX on the same line as the AS STi and putting the cars on the same line in BSP. Not the same as taking a DS car, and classifying it on it's own line in BSP (135i).

I'll be the first one to say that Sipe is a royal jackarse. However, he has two national trophies to his name and those two national events in '08 were his first driving a BS RX-8 (on r-comps) after spending 1.5 seasons in STU. He wasn't 'fast' in BS when he was in BS either. Nor when he had the BMWs, etc... :koolaid:

Sorry, using him as a benchmark to move the RX8 from STU isn't a valid benchmark. He's been known to have the wrong car for the class and make a stink about it (Just like the BMW Z4 he had in '04 and '03) to try and get it moved.

--kC

My suggestion would be an INCLUSION list, instead of antiquated displacement rules. This would be a list of cars that are eligible for a class. Not on the list, not included.
That's a novel idea! It would almost be like...... all the non ST* classes!! O.M.G.!!! :diaf:

That's a novel idea! It would almost be like...... all the non ST* classes!! O.M.G.!!! :diaf:


I guess my internet sarcasm button got stuck on.

The world's a crazy place!!! Apparently the SCCA decides to play along.

He wasn't 'fast' in BS when he was in BS either. Nor when he had the BMWs, etc... :koolaid:

Sorry, using him as a benchmark to move the RX8 from STU isn't a valid benchmark. He's been known to have the wrong car for the class and make a stink about it (Just like the BMW Z4 he had in '04 and '03) to try and get it moved.

--kC
Do understand I wasn't trying to hold Sipe up as a shining example of a solid RX-8 STU effort, however, from his previous results, he seems like a decent driver, and his 'performance' in STU should at least be used as one data point.

I know the RX-8 doesn't gain as much as the STi/Evo in ST* tune, and feel the E36 M3 gains an edge over it as well. I'm just not convinced it'll be a class killer in STX. :alien:

Do understand I wasn't trying to hold Sipe up as a shining example of a solid RX-8 STU effort, however, from his previous results, he seems like a decent driver, and his 'performance' in STU should at least be used as one data point.

I know the RX-8 doesn't gain as much as the STi/Evo in ST* tune, and feel the E36 M3 gains an edge over it as well. I'm just not convinced it'll be a class killer in STX. :alien:

If it goes though, want an STX co-driver in your to be STX prepped RX8? :) :lol:

--kC

If it goes though, want an STX co-driver in your to be STX prepped RX8? :) :lol:

--kC
LOL. I'll see what my current co-driver and I decide to do after the '08 season. If we end up running different classes next season, and I can kick a stupid habit of mine, then just *maybe*...

-Chike ('Hi, my name is Chike and I have an addiction to r-comps')

If we end up running different classes next season, and I can kick a stupid habit of mine, then just *maybe*... If you thought you were taunting the rain gods before... :devil:

If you thought you were taunting the rain gods before... :devil:
ROFLMAO!!!1!!!! :lol::lol::lol:

LOL. I'll see what my current co-driver and I decide to do after the '08 season. If we end up running different classes next season

STS2 - Nothing taunts the rain gods like a miata on "street" tires.

STS2 - Nothing taunts the rain gods like a miata on "street" tires.
He speaks the truth! :lol::lol::lol: :disco:

Run a FWD impreza in HS- running the bastard subaru from the mid 90s should piss off the Subaru gods more than switching away from the brand :x