When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I did just find out that there are national level events at the FIRM which is only 2 hours from me, so I'll likely participate in at least 1 this year.
That's awesome!
Originally Posted by tolas
What is the specific rule that does not allow the Whiteline Roll Center kit?
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't want to spread misinformation! I'm guessing it's from this on Page 91:
14.8 SUSPENSION A. Ride height may only be altered by suspension adjustments, the use of spacing blocks, leaf spring shackles, torsion bar levers, or change or modification of springs or coil spring perches. This does not allow the use of spacers that alter suspension geometry, such as those between the hub carrier and lower suspension arm. Springs must be of the same type as the original (e.g., coil, leaf, torsion bar, bellows) unless noted below and except as noted herein, must use the original spring attachment points. This permits multiple springs, as long as they use the original mount locations. Coil spring perches may be changed or altered and their position may be adjustable. Spacers are allowed above or below the spring. Coil springs may incorporate spring rubbers. Suspension bump stops may be altered or removed. For cars originally equipped with transverse leaf springs, spring type may be changed to a coil spring. Spring perches may be added to shock absorbers for mounting coil springs in a “coilover” configuration.
Correct. But shouldnt worry too much about that because the WL RCK is only 5mm of correction. It does very little other than providing a nice alternative to OEM if stock is worn out.
Correct. But shouldnt worry too much about that because the WL RCK is only 5mm of correction. It does very little other than providing a nice alternative to OEM if stock is worn out.
To clarify, you're saying we could simply replace the OEM balljoint with the WL since there are literally no other reliable options on the market to replace it, but not use the WL tierods? Or are you saying the whole kit would actually be legal?
its not a spacer tho. My other car actually has a 1" spacer-type RCA which is described in the rule
I was hesitant to post what I did, because you're absolutely right. I really don't see anywhere in the rules that specifically states we could use a RCK. I would love to be wrong here.
There are several other wording that can be used as a protest if you tried to run WL ball joints even if this one doesnt fit exactly to the location you're talking about. And one thing to keep in mind, if it doesnt say you can then you cant.
In street category (ST inherits street), 13.1
If the OEM does not provide an appropriate method of repair, industry standard methods and procedures may be used. Such repairs may not result in a part or combination of parts that provides a competitive advantage (e.g., significant change to weight, suspension control, power, etc.) as compared to the standard part(s).
14.8.H Talks about camber adjustments but says even if you change the lower arm instead of strut top,
Changes in suspension geometry are not allowed except as incidental to the effective arm length change
And at the end of the day, its relatively well known (in the national crowd) that the spirit of the rule also matters. Tortured interpretations dont usually fare well.
So if we need replace ball joints the only STU legal option is trying to find complete OEM lower control arms, since Mitsu never sold just the ball joints?
So if we need replace ball joints the only STU legal option is trying to find complete OEM lower control arms, since Mitsu never sold just the ball joints?
some product not labelled 'correction kit'. or with yellow boots
Another autocross in the books, but the coilovers didn't arrive on time. However, thankfully I had a seat again in a STR miata and the trip was well worth it.
It was a battle for sure in PRO/PAX class. I ended up behind John by less than a tenth after 3 runs. On my last run I pulled ahead of him by less than a tenth. Then he proceeded to pull ahead of me by less than a tenth on his last run. Good times!
Woke up an hour late, drove 3.5 hours starting at 5:30am. Had very little time to walk the course. Ended up being the tire warmer. (I was technically 56) Finished between 3 National Champs. I'll take that as a win. Next event is late April. The evo should be ready to play by then!
If you took Evan's fast time on day 1 + the fast time from the other Jacob on day 2, that chassis would have also took STR. Full disclosure, unsure the skill level of those names of the STR drivers from that event. And I get this is theoretical, but it does show the capacity of what this car is about. I still feel this car is incorrectly classed in STU. If you agree and haven't yet written in to express your opinion, here's where you need to do that. https://www.soloeventsboard.com/
EDIT: I still think the Type R in STU form could absolutely dominate as well....the thought has been crossing my mind more than once....
That an aggressive looking tread. Still nothing starting with a 3 tho
Agreed. According to RRX - they are going to be working on the big boy sizes: "Definitely some wider sizes (305+) that we're working to bring in the future but this should provide options for a lot of folks out there." "Wider sizes are on our radar (305/315/325/335) but I don't have confirmation or timing at the moment, unfortunately."
However, thankfully I had a seat again in a STR miata and the trip was well worth it.
