S2000 Racing and Competition The S2000 on the track and Solo circuit. Some of the fastest S2000 drivers in the world call this forum home.

S2000 STR prep resource

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 14, 2010 | 02:30 PM
  #2421  
bronxbomber252's Avatar
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,865
Likes: 38
Default

So... I got my SPC Adjustable Ball joints in and upped my front camber to -2.8... Got to test the car today and it definitely fixed the slight mid corner and on throttle understeer and the car rotates MUCH better... Now to work on getting a bigger front bar so that the car can transition faster. I know a lot of you run Gendron bars but that just is not in my budget in the near future... I will probably get the Saner bar, unless anyone else has any suggestions.
Old Aug 14, 2010 | 02:31 PM
  #2422  
INTJ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,504
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by chetly,Aug 14 2010, 06:52 AM
My reading of the rule is as long as the cat is in the same location as stock (i.e after the header) then this header would be legal. This header fits that wording...

I know of a driver who has this header and cat on thier car and they are on the list of 15 up above that could win.


The point of this rule is to open up other designs. Which virtually by definition are smaller. They just don't want you putting it on back like a superttrap where it would have the least negative effect. However, a smart guy might look into the series by David Vizard, where he shows how they can be used in stock locations.
Old Aug 14, 2010 | 03:43 PM
  #2423  
TheNick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by pinkertonpunk,Aug 14 2010, 07:42 AM
I can't remember if this was discussed yet in this thread or not. I could have sworn there was an answer for my question in a Fasttrack at some point but here it goes:

So since the Hytech header is a touch longer than the stock headers, I am wondering if they could be made STR class legal. Here are the catalytic converter rules for the class:
E. Catalytic Converters
ST, STS, STR – Catalytic converters may be replaced by aftermarket
units. Replacements must:
1) Be certified for use in that vehicle application by the manufacturer
or reconditioner,
2) Bear correct EPA-mandated labeling,
3) Be of the OE quantity and type (i.e. oxidation, three-way, etc.)
and
4) Be used in the same location(s), relative to the chassis, as the
OE converter(s).
This does allow for high performance replacements, provided they
meet all restrictions herein.


So my question is if the high flow cat is smaller than the stock unit does the inlet of the cat have to be at the same point relative to the chassis or does the center of the cat have to be in the same point? I think if it was the middle you could make this header work in STR. Not sure if I would spend the money for this header but I am just wondering.
See the June Fastrack for a proposed clarification on "location"

If the volume of the replacement catalyst substrate/core is smaller than the original, the replacement must fit entirely within the extent of the original


Right now its up to the PC to determine what the "location" is. Some may think its the inlet flange, others may think its the center of the substrate. There really is no way to tell if its legal until someone throws paper.

Unofficially and IMO of course.
Old Aug 14, 2010 | 06:06 PM
  #2424  
steguis's Avatar
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,219
Likes: 12
From: NYC
Default

Originally Posted by bronxbomber252,Aug 14 2010, 05:30 PM
So... I got my SPC Adjustable Ball joints in and upped my front camber to -2.8... Got to test the car today and it definitely fixed the slight mid corner and on throttle understeer and the car rotates MUCH better... Now to work on getting a bigger front bar so that the car can transition faster. I know a lot of you run Gendron bars but that just is not in my budget in the near future... I will probably get the Saner bar, unless anyone else has any suggestions.
Hey, how much camber did you run before adding the SPC adjustable ball joint?
Old Aug 14, 2010 | 07:10 PM
  #2425  
pinkertonpunk's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
From: Pewaukee, WI
Default

Originally Posted by TheNick,Aug 14 2010, 06:43 PM
See the June Fastrack for a proposed clarification on "location"

If the volume of the replacement catalyst substrate/core is smaller than the original, the replacement must fit entirely within the extent of the original


Right now its up to the PC to determine what the "location" is. Some may think its the inlet flange, others may think its the center of the substrate. There really is no way to tell if its legal until someone throws paper.

Unofficially and IMO of course.
I knew it was someplace! I read that as the new cat just needs to be in the stock location whether that be at the front or rear as long as it is in there. Which means to be the Hytech would be legal. I was almost hoping that wasn't going to be the case.
Old Aug 16, 2010 | 07:30 AM
  #2426  
mLeach's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Default

I would argue that if you can't swap the custom cat for a stock one and everything line up the same way, from inlet to exit, ignoring core configuration, then that would be illegal.
Old Aug 16, 2010 | 12:19 PM
  #2427  
imstimpy's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 570
Likes: 16
Default

Originally Posted by mLeach,Aug 16 2010, 07:30 AM
I would argue that if you can't swap the custom cat for a stock one and everything line up the same way, from inlet to exit, ignoring core configuration, then that would be illegal.
Now you are arguing semantics of what a "cat" is. Is it the cat-pipe, from flange to flange, or is the cat itself, from weld to weld? I'll be honest, I haven't looked.
Old Aug 16, 2010 | 01:15 PM
  #2428  
mLeach's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Default

This is true. That's what we get for having a rule set that is predicated on "intents" and gets to be interpreted. Awesome..... not.
Old Aug 16, 2010 | 03:07 PM
  #2429  
Orthonormal's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 1
From: Azusa
Default

In case you weren't aware, anywhere in the Solo rules where it says "the intent of this rule is...", that is not the binding part of the rule. It is just explanatory so that future rule makers can understand what the past rule makers were trying to achieve.

And based on some of the BS I've seen on the internet, no matter how you write a rule there is going to be someone who thinks it is open to interpretation.

The proposed clarification is explicit does not reference intent. See Nick's post above for the wording.
Old Aug 18, 2010 | 06:37 AM
  #2430  
marks_lude's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
From: Twin Cities
Default

It looks like I will most likely settle for the TRmotorsports C3 wheels for next season.

A question on those rims....

I got a response from Tire Rack saying that they believe the website is accurate in showing that the black wheels actually weigh less than the same wheel in gun metal or silver. Anyone have any insight on this? They assumed it was due to additional clear coat that isn't on the black version.



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:36 PM.