http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/04/09-fastrack-april-final.pdf

Things I find interesting...
1) Feedback for 2010 change of Sunsetting of Stock cars.
The SAC continues to seek feedback regarding the following rule change proposal, which would be incorporated into next year’s rule book, becoming effective 1/1/2010: Add new second paragraph to 13.0 as follows: “A car will remain eligible for Divisional, National Tour, and National Championship events through the end of the 30th calendar year after the manufacturer-designated model year of the car.”Which means any car that was made in 1980 or earlier would no longer be eligible for stock. Think about this 10 years or 15 years from now how this will effect stock. With cars lasting longer than ever right now. Would it matter?

2) Feedback for updated stock re-org proposal.

3) Submitted to the BOD: Move the Mini Cooper S from GS to DS. YAY!!!!

4) Tech Bulletin Street Touring: Per the STAC, 14.10.6 should read as follows: “All vehicles must comply with the EPA tail pipe emissions test requirements as a minimum.” How does one make sure they comply if there is no way to test in the area?

5) Tech BulletinStreet Touring: Due to performance potential, the ‘09 Lancer Ralliart (turbocharged) is added to the STX exclusion list. It is legal for the ST category only in STU.

6) Tech BulletinStreet Touring: The ‘08-’09 Cobalt SS (turbocharged) is no longer being considered for exclusion from STX, and may compete there.

--kC

So, trying to find more about the emissions testing to continue this discussion

1) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22EPA+tailpipe+emissions+test+requirements%22
Only lists references to the SCCA rules.

2) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22EPA+tailpipe+emissions+test%22
You'd think I can get somewhere with this as it's just the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Test... right? Wrong. Again... only references the SCCA rules.

Tell me this, how can one be sure they're in compliance with the rule, as written, if it can't even be found on the web? IMHO, if there is no result of EPA Tailpipe Emission Test when googling, can one simply say "it does not exist?".

--kC
Edit: PS, the rule didn't really change. They just took out "ST" from the original after I actually looked it up and finding out that 14.10.6 doesn't really exist (but 14.10.F.6 does).

3. About time. Anyone else noticing the reduction in GS entries it seems? Also FS entries. Having one car be "the car" is not good for competition IMO, just look at AS, HS, and DS entries for proof.

4. Screw the tailpipe crap. In my book, and I believe most of ST*'s, as long as you have the required cat and you're not throwing codes, you're good to go. And in my own personal book, if you have the required hardware I could care less if you're throwing a code...I'm not going to protest.

5. Interesting on the Ralliart, but I really wonder how competitive it would be given it's weight. I think they should have let it try, but I doubt many would have been built to matter.

6. Makes sense to me.

5. Interesting on the Ralliart, but I really wonder how competitive it would be given it's weight. I think they should have let it try, but I doubt many would have been built to matter.


Yeah, I hadn't seen any complaints about this (much unlike the 09 wrx in esp issue).

Even if they were able to make a fair bit more power than an stx wrx I'd still think the weight (~3500lbs IIRC) would make them pretty uncompetitive.

The Ralliart thing... I can see it. The 2.5L WRX is already in STU. The EVO, even though it's only 2.0, is also in STU. The Ralliart is the 2.5L WRX competition... it would run circles around the 2.0L WRX.

I think it's a fair call. If it shows to not do well in STU, like the RX8, move it down. (Not saying moving down the RX8 to STX was the right call either... but it was moved).

I haven't even seen one on the road, let alone at an autocross. I agree, if it's that bad move it down. But I doubt it will really matter either way.

and.........Here we go again....weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

3) Submitted to the BOD: Move the Mini Cooper S from GS to DS. YAY!!!!
+12345 'bout bloody time the move occured! I'm sure GS will be healthier than ever in 2010 (when the rule takes effect), despite what the mini guys would have us believe... ;)

In a fastrack sometime last year they mentioned that they would be keeping an eye on the ralliart in STX classing and might exclude it based on performance.

1. Does anybody rock 30 year old cars in stock? Just the nature of advancing car technology makes it seem like the stock guys kind of have to buy the car du jour. What does this rule buy you? Is it just so you don't have to keep sliding obsolete cars into slower classes?

1. Does anybody rock 30 year old cars in stock? Just the nature of advancing car technology makes it seem like the stock guys kind of have to buy the car du jour. What does this rule buy you? Is it just so you don't have to keep sliding obsolete cars into slower classes?

I think it is more the fact of some very good cars coming up with questionable documentation, or parts availability. Who is to say what's "OEM" when you can't get OEM? things like shock lengths start to come into play amung other things.

We went through a little of this in 2001 when Carpenter won E-Stock in a 1985 CRX - there were some questions about the difference between what actually came on the car and what you could get at Honda, and what was going to make the determination. At the time I was told, "we will just 914 the thing" - refering to placing the 914 so far out of competition it didn't matter.

Now, they don't have to worry about one of the multitudes of 1980s cars that are light, have good suspension geometry, etc sneaking it's way in to be a class-killer. (Because the only thing worse than a brand-new car-du-jour is to have a very old, can't-buy-it anymore car as the "car-du-jour")



Jon K

So, trying to find more about the emissions testing to continue this discussion

1) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22EPA+tailpipe+emissions+test+requirements%22
Only lists references to the SCCA rules.

2) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22EPA+tailpipe+emissions+test%22
You'd think I can get somewhere with this as it's just the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Test... right? Wrong. Again... only references the SCCA rules.

Tell me this, how can one be sure they're in compliance with the rule, as written, if it can't even be found on the web? IMHO, if there is no result of EPA Tailpipe Emission Test when googling, can one simply say "it does not exist?".

--kC
Edit: PS, the rule didn't really change. They just took out "ST" from the original after I actually looked it up and finding out that 14.10.6 doesn't really exist (but 14.10.F.6 does).

You figured it out (not a new clarification), but if you want to see attempts at explaining what it means, here you go...
http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/301633.aspx

Cliff's notes: The EPA pretty much said there was no such thing.
I/M cutpoints tend to vary from test type to test type, and from state to state. States don't even use the same unit of measurement in performing their tests. For example, some states use tailpipe tests that measure percent or part-per-million, while others measure grams-per-mile. There is no federal, minimum cutpoints based upon test types, however.

I would say we are pretty much stuck with it. :unamused:

I think it is more the fact of some very good cars coming up with questionable documentation, or parts availability. Who is to say what's "OEM" when you can't get OEM? things like shock lengths start to come into play amung other things.

We went through a little of this in 2001 when Carpenter won E-Stock in a 1985 CRX - there were some questions about the difference between what actually came on the car and what you could get at Honda, and what was going to make the determination. At the time I was told, "we will just 914 the thing" - refering to placing the 914 so far out of competition it didn't matter.

Now, they don't have to worry about one of the multitudes of 1980s cars that are light, have good suspension geometry, etc sneaking it's way in to be a class-killer. (Because the only thing worse than a brand-new car-du-jour is to have a very old, can't-buy-it anymore car as the "car-du-jour")



Jon K

That makes sense. Making this rule specifically for Divisional and higher events keeps a place for these cars to play.

The Ralliart thing... I can see it. The 2.5L WRX is already in STU. The EVO, even though it's only 2.0, is also in STU. The Ralliart is the 2.5L WRX competition... it would run circles around the 2.0L WRX.

I think it's a fair call. If it shows to not do well in STU, like the RX8, move it down. (Not saying moving down the RX8 to STX was the right call either... but it was moved).

Along with the 2.5L WRX.

I think the Ralliart has the Evo's fancy diff setup - that may be a part of why people are afraid of it.

1. Does anybody rock 30 year old cars in stock? Just the nature of advancing car technology makes it seem like the stock guys kind of have to buy the car du jour. What does this rule buy you? Is it just so you don't have to keep sliding obsolete cars into slower classes?

SP and ST have a gem of a rule that would need to be changed if they do go with a sunsetting rule...

14.1 AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
A. All Solo Rules Stock Category allowances, plus all allowances contained in 14.1 through 14.10.

They would have to add in a line to avoid confusion that the sunsetting rule applies also to those classes.

--kC

SP and ST have a gem of a rule that would need to be changed if they do go with a sunsetting rule...

14.1 AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
A. All Solo Rules Stock Category allowances, plus all allowances contained in 14.1 through 14.10.

They would have to add in a line to avoid confusion that the sunsetting rule applies also to those classes.

--kC
I am more worried about appendix A with the ST rules.

STREET TOURING CATEGORY
Vehicles eligible for this category must meet the Stock category eligibility requirements, as a minimum.

1. Does anybody rock 30 year old cars in stock? Just the nature of advancing car technology makes it seem like the stock guys kind of have to buy the car du jour. What does this rule buy you? Is it just so you don't have to keep sliding obsolete cars into slower classes?

I think last year it was proposed at 25 years. That would put things like the '85 CRX, early C4's, and 944's real close.

I like the 30 year deal better, but I'm not sure if it is needed...

I am more worried about appendix A with the ST rules.

STREET TOURING CATEGORY
Vehicles eligible for this category must meet the Stock category eligibility requirements, as a minimum.

I sent in my letter regarding this to make sure that the sunset rule will not in any way effect ST *or* SP.

--kC

I am more worried about appendix A with the ST rules.

STREET TOURING CATEGORY
Vehicles eligible for this category must meet the Stock category eligibility requirements, as a minimum.

14.1 and 15.1 having a line that negates the sunset rule should be just fine. The Appendicies aren't really a 'rule' but a reference guide for car classing, and can be changed by local regions. :)

--kC

I'm waiting for the year they sunset 89 civic si's. No one will know what to do in ST!