2008 Street Mod Discussion
As far as an online petition, the SCCA will ignore it. Write your own, well thought out letter to seb@scca.com and keep sending it until you get a log number. CC Joel Fehrman at apexlater at hotmail dot com (he's on the NASIOC boards and is a member of the ****). There's also a thread going on about this over on NASIOC:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1453444
Make sure to include your name and SCCA member number in the letter or it'll get filed in the trash can.
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
It's a concerning issue because rule changes could affect someone in BSP that may have to move to SM next year just to be competitive. I am glad everyone is on-board and is sending the SEB their ideas and thoughts in a professional manner. As an STi owner I'd have to add even more weight to play in SM if these rules go into effect.
. . . CC Joel Fehrman at apexlater at hotmail dot com (he's on the NASIOC boards and is a member of the ****). There's also a thread going on about this over on NASIOC:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1453444
Make sure to include your name and SCCA member number in the letter or it'll get filed in the trash can.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1453444
Make sure to include your name and SCCA member number in the letter or it'll get filed in the trash can.
If you are including an opinion on the BSP rules proposals, then CC a copy to Joel (SPAC member).
Thanks guys for the attention to this matter!
As some famous guys once said "YOU GOTTA FIGHT . . . FOR YOUR RIGHT . . . TO PAAAARRRRTY!" (what they really wanted to say was you gotta fight for you right to drive an AWD car, but they just couldn't make it rhyme. Seriously. I talked to 'em)
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-mar-solo.pdf
The first proposal is GREAT! Something they should have done a long time ago - carbon fiber trunks would be LEGAL! Yay! Not really going to make any car much more or less competitive.
The second proposal is - well - kind of random. "If you run tires 275 width or less you can take 200 # off your minimum weight". What is the point of that? I think it is the fact that the best tires for the Hondas are 275's and they know that all the EVOs and Bimmers run bigger tires. They can't win with thier underpowered and traction limited cars so instead of getting a better car they have to tweak the rules in thier favor. Heck - why don't we say if you run over 315 you have to be full weight, if you run 285-305 you can drop 100#, if you run 245-275 you can drop 200#, if you run 235 or less tires you have no minimum. . .
The 4th proposal - allow aftermarket mirrors is cool. Not anything that is going to give one person a huge advantage over another. Just for looks and maybe a couple pound weight savings.
The last proposal is just plain stupid. PLEASE write letters. A stock 2.0L EVO minimum weight would be 2905#. There were a couple of us that were way under that last year.
An EVO with a 2.3 stroker min. weight would be 3002#.
Please write letters - support the first and fourth proposal, fight against the 2nd and 5th proposal!
EVOlutionary
The first proposal is GREAT! Something they should have done a long time ago - carbon fiber trunks would be LEGAL! Yay! Not really going to make any car much more or less competitive.
The second proposal is - well - kind of random. "If you run tires 275 width or less you can take 200 # off your minimum weight". What is the point of that? I think it is the fact that the best tires for the Hondas are 275's and they know that all the EVOs and Bimmers run bigger tires. They can't win with thier underpowered and traction limited cars so instead of getting a better car they have to tweak the rules in thier favor. Heck - why don't we say if you run over 315 you have to be full weight, if you run 285-305 you can drop 100#, if you run 245-275 you can drop 200#, if you run 235 or less tires you have no minimum. . .
The 4th proposal - allow aftermarket mirrors is cool. Not anything that is going to give one person a huge advantage over another. Just for looks and maybe a couple pound weight savings.
The last proposal is just plain stupid. PLEASE write letters. A stock 2.0L EVO minimum weight would be 2905#. There were a couple of us that were way under that last year.
An EVO with a 2.3 stroker min. weight would be 3002#.
Please write letters - support the first and fourth proposal, fight against the 2nd and 5th proposal!
EVOlutionary
With the new minimum weights, we have a 2905 minimum weight, and with my 275's that is dropped to 2705, a weight I can't possibly attain anyway without spending double the value of the car.
so all is "just OK" and I might actually have a nationally competitive EVO without doing anything.
glad I didn't rush to buy new 18"s this year.
chris, i hope you realize how much worse a 275/40 is than a 285/30. it has nothing to do with the tire size its self. running a 275/40 on a 9.5 (i assume that is what you are doing) makes it so you have a contact patch smaller than a 255 where as you can use the whole 285 because of the shorter sidewall. these rules suck and are just going to hold us back. stop being self centered....
chris, i hope you realize how much worse a 275/40 is than a 285/30. it has nothing to do with the tire size its self. running a 275/40 on a 9.5 (i assume that is what you are doing) makes it so you have a contact patch smaller than a 255 where as you can use the whole 285 because of the shorter sidewall. these rules suck and are just going to hold us back. stop being self centered....
yes I am aware of that. I run a 9" rim, so my contact patch is probably the size of a 245. But when individuals like Navid drive my EVO (as he has done on several occastions), they always seem to be able to work around that deficit and post a winning time.
it would be nice to have the gearing advantage that you get with the 285, but I can live without it.
what is more annoying about these rules is the damm changes. It would be nice to enjoy a little consistancy for a few seasons. I mean, the only thing consistant about running an AWD car in autox is that you can garrantee that the rules will change from one season to the next.
a little consistancy in the rules between seasons would be nice.
I agree on the consistency. I specifically made a point to bring that up in my letter to the SEB.
Keep in mind also, it is not just other EVOs we need to be worried about. . . these rule changes may allow other cars (the civics, for example) to be much faster. Not to mention other cars that we have not seen yet (still in development).
Think about this - with the new rules proposal you could see a 1600# Ford Festiva with a 200hp Ford/Cosworth race motor running on 275's in SM . . . THAT would be a force to be reckoned with . . .
Keep in mind also, it is not just other EVOs we need to be worried about. . . these rule changes may allow other cars (the civics, for example) to be much faster. Not to mention other cars that we have not seen yet (still in development).
Think about this - with the new rules proposal you could see a 1600# Ford Festiva with a 200hp Ford/Cosworth race motor running on 275's in SM . . . THAT would be a force to be reckoned with . . .
I agree on the consistency. I specifically made a point to bring that up in my letter to the SEB.
Keep in mind also, it is not just other EVOs we need to be worried about. . . these rule changes may allow other cars (the civics, for example) to be much faster. Not to mention other cars that we have not seen yet (still in development).
Think about this - with the new rules proposal you could see a 1600# Ford Festiva with a 200hp Ford/Cosworth race motor running on 275's in SM . . . THAT would be a force to be reckoned with . . .
Keep in mind also, it is not just other EVOs we need to be worried about. . . these rule changes may allow other cars (the civics, for example) to be much faster. Not to mention other cars that we have not seen yet (still in development).
Think about this - with the new rules proposal you could see a 1600# Ford Festiva with a 200hp Ford/Cosworth race motor running on 275's in SM . . . THAT would be a force to be reckoned with . . .
And with that, it's hard to argue against these changes. I agree that is sucks for us, and again, some consistancy in the rules would be nice, not only for us, but for the SCCA to gather more accurate info to make their decisions.
I agree on the consistency. I specifically made a point to bring that up in my letter to the SEB.
Keep in mind also, it is not just other EVOs we need to be worried about. . . these rule changes may allow other cars (the civics, for example) to be much faster. Not to mention other cars that we have not seen yet (still in development).
Think about this - with the new rules proposal you could see a 1600# Ford Festiva with a 200hp Ford/Cosworth race motor running on 275's in SM . . . THAT would be a force to be reckoned with . . .
Keep in mind also, it is not just other EVOs we need to be worried about. . . these rule changes may allow other cars (the civics, for example) to be much faster. Not to mention other cars that we have not seen yet (still in development).
Think about this - with the new rules proposal you could see a 1600# Ford Festiva with a 200hp Ford/Cosworth race motor running on 275's in SM . . . THAT would be a force to be reckoned with . . .
Results from this past weekends Tour:
SS
1 - Steve Waters_________2004 Chevrolet Corvette_______89.737
ASP
1 - Hector SanNicolas_____2004 Chevy Z06 Slv___________ 88.537
BSP
1 - Edward Wesch _______ 1992 Chevrolet Corvette ______89.446
2 - Edward Champagnie____2003 Mitsubishi Lancer________91.886
XP
1 - Jesse Naughton________2001 Toyota MR Spyder_______ 88.253
SM
1 - George Bonafede______2003 Mitsubishi Evo VIII _______89.044
2 - Christopher Travis______1994 Honda Civic Red _________90.522
SM2
1 - David Lehman_________2004 Chevrolet Corvette________88.641
The results here at this event are almost PERFECT for how fast the tops in each class "should" be. BSP is a little faster than SS. ASP is about a second faster than BSP. SM is a little faster than BSP. SM2 is a little faster than SM. And finally, XP is faster than everyone. . .
Interesting that a VETTE won BSP. Pretty good for a class full of "overdogs"
Also intertesting that perennial Nationals trophy winner Chris Travis was in the hunt in SM once again. That little Honda finished 3rd and 4th in '05 (besting Mark Daddio), 5th and 8th in '06 (only 0.5s back from Vic), and 4th and 6th in '07. Do you want to have to go up against that car once it gets to drop another 200#?
EVOlutionary
SS
1 - Steve Waters_________2004 Chevrolet Corvette_______89.737
ASP
1 - Hector SanNicolas_____2004 Chevy Z06 Slv___________ 88.537
BSP
1 - Edward Wesch _______ 1992 Chevrolet Corvette ______89.446
2 - Edward Champagnie____2003 Mitsubishi Lancer________91.886
XP
1 - Jesse Naughton________2001 Toyota MR Spyder_______ 88.253
SM
1 - George Bonafede______2003 Mitsubishi Evo VIII _______89.044
2 - Christopher Travis______1994 Honda Civic Red _________90.522
SM2
1 - David Lehman_________2004 Chevrolet Corvette________88.641
The results here at this event are almost PERFECT for how fast the tops in each class "should" be. BSP is a little faster than SS. ASP is about a second faster than BSP. SM is a little faster than BSP. SM2 is a little faster than SM. And finally, XP is faster than everyone. . .
Interesting that a VETTE won BSP. Pretty good for a class full of "overdogs"
Also intertesting that perennial Nationals trophy winner Chris Travis was in the hunt in SM once again. That little Honda finished 3rd and 4th in '05 (besting Mark Daddio), 5th and 8th in '06 (only 0.5s back from Vic), and 4th and 6th in '07. Do you want to have to go up against that car once it gets to drop another 200#?
EVOlutionary
Thx Jarrod, but for all intents & purposes, my Sunday results are not indicative of what the car is capable of--as my new, trick, high $$ clutch was convulsing... The whole front assembly of the car was shuddering HORRIBLY!
I was so preoccupied w/ getting the car to the finish, I drove very defensively. Look @ the #s on Sat. The car was only .3 behind the Naughton-driven XP Spyder for overall FTD, abt 1 sec ahead of SM2 & also 2nd or 3rd in PAX, I think.
My combined, theoretically, would have been upper 87s, as the XP car was not in top form on Sun either (should have been in lower 87s).
If these #s looked like that, it may have not bode well for us...
No matter, we took home P1 & I feel very fortunate we nursed the car home.
FWIW...
The whole front assembly of the car was shuddering HORRIBLY! I was so preoccupied w/ getting the car to the finish, I drove very defensively. Look @ the #s on Sat. The car was only .3 behind the Naughton-driven XP Spyder for overall FTD, abt 1 sec ahead of SM2 & also 2nd or 3rd in PAX, I think.
My combined, theoretically, would have been upper 87s, as the XP car was not in top form on Sun either (should have been in lower 87s).
If these #s looked like that, it may have not bode well for us...
No matter, we took home P1 & I feel very fortunate we nursed the car home.
FWIW...