S2000 STR prep resource

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

Jul 18, 2010 | 12:22 PM

#2291

mavm86

Registered User

Joined: Sep 2007

Posts: 787

Likes: 0

From: Vancouver, BC

Quote:

Originally Posted by PedalFaster,Jul 18 2010, 12:36 PM

Just out of curiosity -- why is everyone fitting 17" x 9" rims instead of 16" x 9"? The latter would weigh less at the expense of slightly worse transitional response because of the taller sidewalls (assuming identical tire diameter).

I would guess tire sizes. I don't think any of the top ST tires come in a 255 wide 16" version.

Jul 18, 2010 | 03:41 PM

#2292

Jreyenga

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2003

Posts: 105

Likes: 0

From: Lomita, CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by mavm86,Jul 18 2010, 12:22 PM

I would guess tire sizes. I don't think any of the top ST tires come in a 255 wide 16" version.

in my opinion tire compound is one of the absolute most important variable and to my knowledge none of the 5 or 6 potential ST tire models are offered with a 16" tire wider than 225 (kumho XS has a OE camaro friendly 265, but it's as tall as the 17" options)

That said, if I were building an NB miata or mr-spyder, a 225 on a 15x8.5 would be a pretty fun setup.

Jul 19, 2010 | 06:54 AM

#2293

imstimpy

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 570

Likes: 16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jreyenga,Jul 18 2010, 08:55 AM

I think they are +68ish and I run a 5mm spacer. They'll hit the front control arm pretty hard without the spacer (but I might be able to go to like a 3mm spacer if I wanted to machine my own).

Ask Jung. He made some universal 3mm spacers for our STU Subaru last year.

Jul 19, 2010 | 02:10 PM

#2294

imstimpy

Joined: Apr 2010

Posts: 570

Likes: 16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzr,Jul 18 2010, 10:17 AM

The rule says *any* external profile move is illegal. If you want to make illegal just about any car in any ST class, bring in a virgin front fender and build a jig to do the comparison. I guarantee no car with rolled fenders will match exactly, however carefully the roll was done.

In my run-in with the rules, the "intention" of the rule is what was enforced, not quite verbatim of what was or was not written.

"I think the rule means this...", says the protest committee.

[QUOTE=2010 SCCA Solo Rules 14.2.E]
The intention is to permit ﬁ

Jul 19, 2010 | 03:03 PM

#2295

jzr

Registered User

Joined: Dec 2000

Posts: 1,821

Likes: 0

From: San Diego

Quote:

Originally Posted by imstimpy,Jul 19 2010, 02:10 PM

In my run-in with the rules, the "intention" of the rule is what was enforced, not quite verbatim of what was or was not written.

"I think the rule means this...", says the protest committee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2010 SCCA Solo Rules 14.2.E

The intention is to permit ﬁ tting the maximum allowable
tire size, and the modiﬁ cations may serve no other purpose (e.g. air
intake, brake ducts, etc.).

There is your "intention" of the rule.

There was a Fastrack recently that reiterated the rule in no uncertain terms-

Quote:

Street Touring: Per the STAC, only the inner lip of a fender may be rolled, per 14.2.E. The outer fender contour may not be
changed to provide additional tire clearance.

So you're left trying to argue that your modification to the external contour of the fender (which you made if you rolled the lip at all) does not in any way provide additional tire clearance. Yay for happy fun gray rules.

Jul 19, 2010 | 06:06 PM

#2296

josh7owens

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 4,340

Likes: 0

From: Frankfort, KY

yup rules that serve no true benifit/advanage are crappy for example we can't run a aem v2 intake because you have to cut 3" circle in this thin plasic (maybe a 2 oz piece at most).

I also dislike the tuning on ap1's

I want kpro lol

but they are there for a reason so I guess to play we have to follow them

Jul 19, 2010 | 06:44 PM

#2297

Sobe_Death

Joined: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,239

Likes: 13

From: Denver

Quote:

Originally Posted by josh7owens,Jul 19 2010, 10:06 PM

I want kpro lol

but they are there for a reason so I guess to play we have to follow them

Is there a reason that the AP1 and AP2V1 guys are only using a VAFC (that I have heard of)?

From reading the rules, it would seem like any piggyback tuning solution should be legal?

Jul 19, 2010 | 07:45 PM

#2298

PedalFaster

Joined: Mar 2002

Posts: 6,014

Likes: 1

From: Seattle, WA

Quote:

Originally Posted by josh7owens,Jul 19 2010, 07:06 PM

yup rules that serve no true benifit/advanage are crappy for example we can't run a aem v2 intake because you have to cut 3" circle in this thin plasic (maybe a 2 oz piece at most).

Just because it provides no advantage on your car doesn't mean it doesn't provide an advantage on any other car out there.

Jul 20, 2010 | 05:06 AM

#2299

TheNick

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2008

Posts: 1,024

Likes: 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sobe_Death,Jul 19 2010, 09:44 PM

Is there a reason that the AP1 and AP2V1 guys are only using a VAFC (that I have heard of)?

From reading the rules, it would seem like any piggyback tuning solution should be legal?

You are not allowed to directly control any of the ignition or fuel components, only trick the ECU into changing its outputs. So if you use an Emanage - you are basically over paying for a VAFC because you can only use the MAF features of the unit.

Jul 20, 2010 | 05:08 AM

#2300

TheNick

Registered User

Joined: Jun 2008

Posts: 1,024

Likes: 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by PedalFaster,Jul 19 2010, 10:45 PM

Just because it provides no advantage on your car doesn't mean it doesn't provide an advantage on any other car out there.

Shit if we opened that rule you better believe I'd have my air filter outside the car in front of the bumper (remember body kits/bumpers are 'free').

Or I'd at least have a 12" diameter dryer hose (or something similar) running right to the filter (with an associated 12" diameter hole in my bumper).

I really don't think people get how far you can take the allowances.