March Fastrack - Solo
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 1
March Fastrack - Solo
http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-f...-march-solo.pdf
seb@scca.com
We want your feedback.
Also note that these 2 lines:
and
Have been added by the SEB - you may or may not see proposal's or clarifications regarding these subjects. They have been discussed already but not in extensive detail.
Again - I urge you to not be quiet on this subject - the committees don't work without member feedback. Please include your membership number when writing your email.
Thanks
Nick Jackson - STAC
STREET TOURING
- The STAC has provided the following rule change proposal, which is published here for member comment: Replace 14.2.F in its entirety with the following:
“F. 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 5 square feet as calculated per Section 12.9. The number of wing elements is limited to 2.
Wings, and any component thereof, may not extend beyond the vehicle width, as defined by the outermost portion of the vehicle doors, less mirrors, door handles, rub strips, and trim. In addition, no portion of the wing or its components may extend beyond the rear most portion of the bodywork, above the roofline of the vehicle, or more than 6” forward of the rear axle, regardless of body style. For convertibles and roadsters, the highest portion of the windshield frame will be considered the highest portion of the roof.
Reinforcements to the wing mounting area may be used, but may serve no other purpose. Body panels to which a wing mounts must remain fully functional (e.g. trunk lids and rear hatches must open fully). Wing endplate surface area is limited to 110 square inches each ,and the total number of endplates is limited to a maximum of two. Substitution or removal of rear wings must retain any original third brake light functionality unless otherwise equipped (e.g back deck).”
Comment: This removes the original allowance for aftermarket body kits, spoilers and other appearance items, whose original purpose (i.e. attract Sport Compact enthusiasts) is no longer relevant, and which a number of competitors were using for performance advantage. Its replacement maintains the status quo on usage of aftermarket wings, while placing restrictions on further escalation. In addition, per member input, complete removal of OE wings would now be legal in many cases.
- The STAC has provided the following rule change proposal, which is published here for member comment: Replace 14.2.F in its entirety with the following:
“F. 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 5 square feet as calculated per Section 12.9. The number of wing elements is limited to 2.
Wings, and any component thereof, may not extend beyond the vehicle width, as defined by the outermost portion of the vehicle doors, less mirrors, door handles, rub strips, and trim. In addition, no portion of the wing or its components may extend beyond the rear most portion of the bodywork, above the roofline of the vehicle, or more than 6” forward of the rear axle, regardless of body style. For convertibles and roadsters, the highest portion of the windshield frame will be considered the highest portion of the roof.
Reinforcements to the wing mounting area may be used, but may serve no other purpose. Body panels to which a wing mounts must remain fully functional (e.g. trunk lids and rear hatches must open fully). Wing endplate surface area is limited to 110 square inches each ,and the total number of endplates is limited to a maximum of two. Substitution or removal of rear wings must retain any original third brake light functionality unless otherwise equipped (e.g back deck).”
Comment: This removes the original allowance for aftermarket body kits, spoilers and other appearance items, whose original purpose (i.e. attract Sport Compact enthusiasts) is no longer relevant, and which a number of competitors were using for performance advantage. Its replacement maintains the status quo on usage of aftermarket wings, while placing restrictions on further escalation. In addition, per member input, complete removal of OE wings would now be legal in many cases.
We want your feedback.
Also note that these 2 lines:
The SEB and STAC will be continuing to review possible changes in allowances concerning exhaust, firmware, and emissions compliance requirements.
The SEB has directed the STAC to review the tire treadwear rating minimum value requirement.
Have been added by the SEB - you may or may not see proposal's or clarifications regarding these subjects. They have been discussed already but not in extensive detail.
Again - I urge you to not be quiet on this subject - the committees don't work without member feedback. Please include your membership number when writing your email.
Thanks
Nick Jackson - STAC
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 1
No I have no opinions - I react to member input 
The ruling proposes that all existing body kit allowances be removed - that means no splitters/lips/etc.
CR will have to retain all stock bodywork except for the wing.
The ruling proposes that all existing body kit allowances be removed - that means no splitters/lips/etc.
CR will have to retain all stock bodywork except for the wing.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 1
From: Azusa
An alternative is to have no wing allowance, which is how I would prefer it. It sounds like the feedback so far is that ST/STS as a whole does not want wings, and STX/STU as a whole does want wings. That leaves STR in question, assuming the SEB is willing to split the preparation rules.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Orthonormal,Feb 23 2010, 02:11 PM
An alternative is to have no wing allowance, which is how I would prefer it. It sounds like the feedback so far is that ST/STS as a whole does not want wings, and STX/STU as a whole does want wings. That leaves STR in question, assuming the SEB is willing to split the preparation rules.
I also am kind of curious as to which direction they are heading in after seeing that treadware comment. I would assume a limit that would be higher than the current 140, which I think is fine. Il probably shoot on a letter tonight.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
From: Northern NJ
I can't see them raising the minimum treadwear rating, unless they REALLY have it out to piss off Toyo, since the R1Rs are rated @ 140.
Yokohama AD08: 180
Bridgestone RE11: 180
Dunlop Star Specs: 200
Kumho XS: 180
I'm all for them lowering it to 100 though, since I was daily driving on R888s anyway. I know on the SCCA forums there is a thread about an impending issue with tire noise, and allowing softer compounds is the only way around that.
Yokohama AD08: 180
Bridgestone RE11: 180
Dunlop Star Specs: 200
Kumho XS: 180
I'm all for them lowering it to 100 though, since I was daily driving on R888s anyway. I know on the SCCA forums there is a thread about an impending issue with tire noise, and allowing softer compounds is the only way around that.
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
I hope they disallow wings...
Wings add cost.
Racing is already costly and it's bad enough that budget racers like me are competiting against guys who spend $1500 on wings, $5000 on shocks, etc, etc.
I understand that super close competitiveness involves a great deal of how much money do you have, i just don't like it
Wings add cost.
Racing is already costly and it's bad enough that budget racers like me are competiting against guys who spend $1500 on wings, $5000 on shocks, etc, etc.
I understand that super close competitiveness involves a great deal of how much money do you have, i just don't like it