An option would be to run Ciro Racing adjustable FSB brackets . Then you could set the bar to stock stiffness (or softer), or up to 145% stiffer. The brackets are designed for quick adjustment in grid, on one side, without needing to change the end-link length.

A stiffer front bar can be beneficial in slalom intensive courses.

Rick

 

I'm currently at 650F/700R, Hotchkiss RSB and stock FSB. This setup was inspired equally by Dallas J and my desire to keep it streetable. The ride quality on the Ohlins is surprisingly good, so higher spring rates aren't out of the question.

Camber is -3.1 degrees up front and -1.8 degrees in the rear. I know that's more rear camber than most everyone else, but the setup is already very tail happy in the slaloms in every combination of damper settings I've tried, so I'm not sure I want to give up any more rear grip.

Maybe I'll try a 650F/800R or 700F/900R setup next season just to see how it feels.

 

I emailed you about these yesterday, BTW. I am in the market!

What kind of surfaces do you run on?

 

I don't know about that...I know of a lot of competitive STU cars that are/were around where we are. The car that took 2nd in 2012 (Sean O'Boyle's) was running upwards of 1000lb rears, and I know Rick's STU car is somewhere in that neighborhood as well.

 

And the car that won in 2013 wasn't running nearly that much :P.


Running over 3hz even on r-comps is too much IMO. Parking lots aren't flat, if you need more roll control there are other ways to get it.

 

Mostly low-grip sealed asphalt. I've never autocrossed on a very grippy asphalt or on concrete, but I wouldn't be surprised if my setup was all wrong on a super-grippy surface like concrete.

 

Just saw the November Fastrack Preview, looks Like I see AWDs Could be getting 265s! Submit Feedback, and lets make this Happen!

 

http://www.solomatters.com/November_...strack_preview

 

Cool, I'd prefer the shorter 285s for lower gearing and fitment, but the taller 265s are workable with the current crop of tires. The first round of mid engine cars will most likely include the Boxster, and hopefully not the light lotus.

Still sounds like it needs to go the SEB and the BOD, both which have members that are past ST class drivers. They still want feedback, so it would be a good idea to send a quick letter to support the proposal.

 

Very cool. I'm glad we're still seeing progress toward balancing the class. I don't envy the people who have to come up with some combination of rules that keeps everyone from being too unhappy.

I'm certainly not going to complain about having 265s on the table here and would welcome the change, but it will be interesting to see if we can reap any actual benefits from 265 over 255 on our cars, at least with the RE-71R.

Data for the RE-71R (thanks to Mikko for gathering it in the first place):

If those tread width numbers are accurate, going to 265s doesn't really give us any more tread width, but it does cost another ~4 lbs of tire and wheel at each corner and gearing suffers as well. Obviously the math changes as soon as someone else makes another competitive 265/35/18 that is actually wider than the 255 or if these tread width numbers are wrong.

265s should be great news for the Evo X though, which already has to run 18" wheels.

 

I'm curious to see a 255/40/17 mounted on a 9.5" wheel vs a 265/35/18 mounted on a 10" wheel, it might change those tread width numbers a bit. I'll be trying the 255/40/17 on my 9.5" wide RPF-1s first though, currently $350 cheaper for the set over the 265s and I won't have to buy new wheels (yet ).

 

Wrote my letter in support of 265 for AWD in STU. Goodluck.

Now all you guys need to do is reach out to Bridgestone /BFG /Tirerack, ask them to make a 265/40/17 wide tire.

 

No, no, no! Ask for wide 265/3518s instead!! 30 series would be even better!

 

Yea but the 265/40/17 would be the same diameter as the 265/35/18 while most likely having wider tread width than the 265/35/18 and may be cheaper due to 17s.

 

From the current crop of tires, most including myself will probably try the 255s first. The STAC may be looking that most will use the oversized 255 anyways, hence the change of heart for the 265 allowance. I think a pinched 285 is the way to go for gearing and fitment. We should ask for 285s for AWD now, to be covered once competitive compounds come out (soon) in that size.

Also note from the STP proposal that the STAC is not adverse to allowing larger than 285 for RWD. If they want the vette to be faster in the future, they could go up to 315s. It would not really be a take-back either, as most vette drivers would prefer larger than 285s. Also make sense that STU > STP in tire size.