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.
Tires mounted up! I can already tell by scrubbing these in, that the steering response is more "crisp" than the Nankangs. The 660's definitely look better on the 11 and 10" wheels with the sidewall design...now are they faster? Time will tell.
I gotta say, I am not a fan of the RT660. Pretty disappointed with my performance this weekend overall as I couldn't get through my series of 3 runs without multiple mistakes. I should have went with my gut and stayed with the Nankangs for the weekend, but I did run slightly faster on the TNT course with the RT660's. But it was definitely harder to go fast at the limit on these RT660's than the Kangs, IMO. Mr. Carpenter summed it up pretty well when I spoke with him. The A052's are just more forgiving at the limit. The RT660's are like and on off switch when you hit that limit and I'm truly not comfortable with that type of feel.
That being said, I have (4) 285/30/18 RT660's for sale!
The car felt super darty on these tires. I'm unsure if it's a combination of their sidewall, my steering input or my alignment, but I just couldn't adapt quick enough to get the feel of these tires down.
Crazy thing is we were out raw'd by STS on one day. Day 1 was definitely a miata course since it was slalom heavy. Day 2 I thought would be right up our alley as it seemed to dig a lot, but there was not much room after to exploit our power/awd. Gentlemen like Mr Heaton, Hunter, Williams that I normally Pax very close to, absolutely destroyed me this weekend. On to make some changes and go faster in the future.
It was nice meeting you this weekend Brent. It's funny, I wasn't happy with the Nankangs but mine are probably 60-70% worn at this point. Ultimately it was my own head/mental/driving mistakes that held me back more than anything with the car. I just couldn't put together a good complete run. My first nats and my first concrete course, so I'm chalking it all up to a great learning experience, and I have some things to work on with the car and a ton to work on with my driving!
It was good to meet you as well John! Nice to see another evo join in the fun!
It's definitely a mental battle. To get things done in 3 runs has always been tough for me. To the guys that can get it done in 1-3, it's truly impressive and all about minimizing mistakes.
Either way, hope to see you guys down here again for Mid Divs or Nationals!
I feel like I've asked in the past, but could someone clarify this for me? The way I'm reading this is I could replace EITHER the toe arm or the LCA, but not both.
there is an update that will go to the BOD at the end of the year that attempts to clarify the multi link camber allowance. check it out in the June 22 fastrack (https://www.scca.com/downloads/62525...track/download) letter 30465.
it is unfortunately not super straight forward to identify which lateral arms are 'camber' and which ones are 'toe' in some multilink designs. in some years of STI for example the two lower lateral links in the rear are in the same plane and both of them will change camber and toe at the same time, you could legally change either one I think (personal, non-official opinion). To some extent the toe link on the evo changes camber (and the camber link changes toe) so you could try to put together some justification for changing the toe arms but the intention of the rule is to not allow toe link changes so even if you did survive a protest the rules would likely be changed to close whatever loophole was being exploited. If you have any suggestions for how to make the rules more clear I would like to hear it, this is an allowance that is tough to state clearly in black and white.
And to be clear I don't think changing the toe arm on the rear of an evo is legal (again, personal non-official opinion).
there is an update that will go to the BOD at the end of the year that attempts to clarify the multi link camber allowance. check it out in the June 22 fastrack (https://www.scca.com/downloads/62525...track/download) letter 30465.
it is unfortunately not super straight forward to identify which lateral arms are 'camber' and which ones are 'toe' in some multilink designs. in some years of STI for example the two lower lateral links in the rear are in the same plane and both of them will change camber and toe at the same time, you could legally change either one I think (personal, non-official opinion). To some extent the toe link on the evo changes camber (and the camber link changes toe) so you could try to put together some justification for changing the toe arms but the intention of the rule is to not allow toe link changes so even if you did survive a protest the rules would likely be changed to close whatever loophole was being exploited. If you have any suggestions for how to make the rules more clear I would like to hear it, this is an allowance that is tough to state clearly in black and white.
And to be clear I don't think changing the toe arm on the rear of an evo is legal (again, personal non-official opinion).
Thank you sir! I appreciate that clarification and that helps to know the way it was written was to prohibit the toe arm from being replaced in the first place.
I'm just going to stay away from replacing that toe arm all together.
Well, they'll let you drop if your rep is cool but only once in a great while from what I've seen. I tell em it's for my employee or whatever. But no - still all red, no ETA's on 295's.
but mine are probably 60-70% worn at this point. Ultimately it was my own head/mental/driving mistakes that held me back more than anything with the car. I just couldn't put together a good complete run. My first nats and my first concrete course, so I'm chalking it all up to a great learning experience, and I have some things to work on with the car and a ton to work on with my driving!
