Help with STR aero rules.

[bimmertech]

I have read the rule book several times and can't get this clear in my head. I have to buy a front bumper cover for my 99 miata. Do I HAVE to buy a stock bumper cover, or will one of the cheapies off ebay pass? I know I won't get protested locally without adding a huge splitter or something, but I don't want to waste money on an illegal part. Would a bumper cover such as the Racing Beat III be legal?

[rodhx]

I know I won't get protested locally without adding a huge splitter or something

are you really that sure?



Seriously, the July Fastrack has the latest proposed changes for the ST classes. I have been ignoring the aero/bodykit debates since they don't affect me at the moment, so I don't know where this stands. I was thinking we are headed toward OEM stuff only.

Just re-read your post..the rule book is useless to you because this particular rule is changing. You need to pull the Fastracks and go through the proposals. There is also a lengthy thread on sccaforums.com, and maybe even miata.net.

[engled]

To add to what Rod said. Write a letter if you want the rules changed/not changed.

[bimmertech]

When I say "rule book" I was includinf the fsttracks. I know it was leaning towards oem only, but the BOD sent the decision back to be "rethought." Writing a letter may be in order.

[rodhx]

Okay...I thought it got a little more settled than that. The way the original revision was written I was thinking I would have to remove the side skirts that have been on my car for 12 years. The last version did away with that lunacy thankfully.

[rodhx]

I *think* this is the latest proposed wording on the Street Touring aero rules, as found in the January 2011 Fastrack:

"14.2.F Addition of spoilers, splitters, rear wings, bumper covers, valances, side skirts, and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed provided that either:
1) it is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a US model of the vehicle
2) it is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog for that vehicle, for normal highway use

Parts must be installed as directed by the manufacturer. Exact replicas (including weight) from alternate sources are also permitted."

Personally, I would not stray from this if you have the intent to do national tour events.

[e30Racer]

WOW, ST is really getting away from what the original intention of the class was...sad news!!!

[kilgojr]

looks to me like its going to turn into a motor building and suspension building contest. VTEC and VVC with possibly Megasquirt in the original factory case instead of the factory ecu. Depending on how strict they get with motor building, I think you'll see some pretty mean motors and some high dollar suspension, probably AST since they are the only ones providing contingency money. AST triple adjustables, maybe. I haven't seen the tire dimensions yet, but that will make a big difference, and it will be all over the place considering how many subclasses there are.

So I'm thinking STR is about to get very expensive at the National Level. It will be interesting to see what loopholes people find.

I love this stuff. It ain't cheating if you don't get caught!!!!!!!!!

[rodhx]

I'm not so sure John. A true national effort in any class is going to be expensive. You can't build a motor in Street Touring, at least not beyond the Stock rules, so it is not going to become SP anytime soon. Suspension is something else entirely but there are no significant changes to the long-standing ST ruleset regarding suspension. Wheel & tire width allowances for each class do not appear to be changing either.

The significant changes proposed for 2012 look to be ECUs, brakes, & exhaust, all of which are being changed to bring some consistency across the Street Touring classes. ECUs will no longer be limited to what can fit in the factory case. The biggest change is the class lineup themselves where any given car is only eligible for one class, just like Stock & SP. This will keep the ST 89 Civics from stepping up to STX/STU and winning those classes again.

Regarding the aero change, this is attempting to reign in a situation that was already out of control. The original wording intended to allow body kits and other showy bits had led to the swiss-cheesing of bumper covers and a requirement of wings & splitters to be nationally competitive. The winning MX5 last year wore a wing awfully similar to a certain red e30 I know

Personally I like the changes. Since STR was the model for many of the other changes it is not tremendously impacted. I don't have to worry about an aero arms race and may have some actual options regarding engine management. There are already good choices for Miata exhausts so those changes are largely irrelevant. Wheels & tires are staying the same so I have no worries there as I am already on the max width wheel.

It is sad that our consistent ST class will get split up. Derrin, Zac, & Joseph will be STF and Jeremiah & others will be STC.

[e30Racer]

The problem I have is that SCCA needs to be able to enforce the "spirit of the rules"!!! ST was created to have the street racers come out and have a place to compete. An easy way to curb the "aero mods" is to enforce the fact that swiss cheesing bumpers isn't in the spirit of what the rule is supposed to be.

I just think that SCCA is trying to do a major overhaul when all you need is just some clarifications. Everyother racing organization puts out clarifications on rules. Why is it so hard for SCCA to do it for SOLO?

[rodhx]

The Street Touring classes are the biggest successes in Solo these days. It moved beyond a place for "street racers" to play some time ago. However, the only thing missing from the original intent is the new aero rule. Street Touring remains the place for cars with common mods to come play.

"Spirit of the rules" is never enforceable. A rule consists of specific language. If swiss-cheesing the rear bumper cover is legal per the rule, then it is not up for debate. It may be stupid looking...but it is also legal. That's an extreme example. Street Touring got an aero allowance to help the fast'n'furious crowd fit in, even going so far as to say such wings are not effective at autocross speeds. Well, guess what? They were wrong. They ARE effective and have become a cost of admission item.

I do think it is a clarification. The changes take a few of the items that differ among the various ST classes and makes them universal. It also mostly gets rid of the formulaic classing system and brings all ST classes in line with the way every other Solo class, included STR, is handled...an inclusion list.

[e30Racer]

I disagree Rod. The spirit of the rules is easily enforceable. Everyone knows that "commonly available" body kits don't come with swiss cheese holes in them. Swiss cheesing is a ridiculous exaggeration of the rules, and so, at that point the SCCA needs to simply make a clarification. All it has to be is a simple addendum that installed body kits must be installed as from the manufacturer. Done.

But that's actually a moot point bc as you said, the rules are the rules. And actually, as I have read the 2010 rules, no where does it say that one can modify body kits. If I am wrong, then please point it out to me. As SOLO rules go, if it doesn't say you can do it, then you can't do it.

My last point is that the rules for ST are also as follows "Addition of spoilers, splitters, body kits, rear wings and nonfunctional scoops/vents is allowed. The intent of this allowance is to accommodate commonly available appearance kits, and replicas thereof, which have no significant aerodynamic function at Solo speeds." So if someone is running a huge wing that has more than "significant" aero function, they are outside the rules. So having two cars prepared exactly the same, one with a wing, and one without a wing, they should run equal times. If the one with a wing is running faster, then they have significant aerodynamic function and therefore are outside the letter of the rules. Am I wrong?

[rodhx]

Can't see it John. "Spirit of the rules" means something different to each person. If it's not down in black & white, then it is not enforceable. Just ask a lawyer

You are wrong about the modification piece. 2010 rule 14.2.F specifically allows for "modified OE bumper covers". That's the language that led to at least a handful of folks making rear bumper covers look like a CSP car's brake rotors. It starts off by saying the allowances are for things that provide no advantage at Solo speeds, but the rule was so poorly written that that part has proved irrelevant. That statement is irrelevant regarding wings & splitters as well, because the same rule went on to describe exactly wing configurations are allowable.

BTW, I just realized this whole discussion is just a mental exercise. The rewrite of 14.2.F that I quoted in post #6 of this thread IS the 2011 rule, so it has been in effect all year. The quote in your last paragraph is no longer applicable.

[kilgojr]

Rod, Previous discussion of Spirit of the rules was Mark, not me.

And to get back to the original post, 2011 Rule 14.2.F is the language as Rod has shown in his first post. It seems straight forward to me for 2011. Now if they are going to be changing this for 2012 then that is something you have to take into account, but as in 2011, they were posting Fasttrack updates through March of 2011 for STR. So if that holds up, it may be December January, or into February before the new rules are in place. Although the board would be making alot of people upset if they do that, because it will affect SO many people.

So basically you need to buy an OEM peice or factory available US accesory part. Or buy a part that is an exact replica including weight from an aftermarket source (say Cardone or something like that). From seeing these discussions of National level competition, if you show up in STR with a front bumper cover from Racing Beat, then you are asking to get protested. Your other option is to build a CSP car, not an STR car (but then this whole discussion is irrelevant.)

Can't see it John. "Spirit of the rules" means something different to each person. If it's not down in black & white, then it is not enforceable. Just ask a lawyer

You are wrong about the modification piece. 2010 rule 14.2.F specifically allows for "modified OE bumper covers". That's the language that led to at least a handful of folks making rear bumper covers look like a CSP car's brake rotors. It starts off by saying the allowances are for things that provide no advantage at Solo speeds, but the rule was so poorly written that that part has proved irrelevant. That statement is irrelevant regarding wings & splitters as well, because the same rule went on to describe exactly wing configurations are allowable.

BTW, I just realized this whole discussion is just a mental exercise. The rewrite of 14.2.F that I quoted in post #6 of this thread IS the 2011 rule, so it has been in effect all year. The quote in your last paragraph is no longer applicable.

[rodhx]

What's a few Kilgores among friends?

I don't believe there is any talk of changing the "aero" rule for Street Touring in 2012. I had simply forgotten the rule had officially changed for 2011.