SCCAForums.com

Looks like they're offering Street Prepared some goodies to try and keep us ahead of STS ;-)   What do we think about this?

 

STREET PREPARED

• The SPAC has submitted the following rule change proposals for member comment:

o Replace 15.6 with the following:

15.6BRAKES

Vehicles may only exceed the allowances of 13.6 as specified herein.

A. Any brake line, single or dual master cylinder, vacuum brake booster, or brake proportioning valves may be used.

This does not allow multiple separate cylinders, but does allow for any single, dual-circuit cylinder.

B. “Safety brakers” and units such as the “Brake Guard System” are permitted.

C. ABS braking systems may be disabled, but not removed; brake boosters may be removed, modified, substituted,

or added.

D. Alternate brake rotors are permitted, subject to the following restrictions:

1. Rotors must be ferrous metal except for standard parts. Aluminum rotor hats are allowed. Rotor dimensions

(diameter and thickness) must be equal to or greater than standard parts. Cars originally equipped with

solid (non-vented) rotors may utilize vented rotors.

2. Cross-drilled and/or slotted brake rotors may be used. Slots/holes are permitted only in the braking area of

the rotor. Rotors featuring a drum-type parking brake in the hat area of the rotor may not be drilled/slotted

in the parking brake area.

E. Drum brakes may be replaced with disc brakes. Disc brake rotors for such a conversion must be equal to or

greater in diameter than the inside diameter of the standard brake drum. Changes to backing plates/mounting

brackets/brake lines to accommodate this change are permitted but may serve no other purpose. Drum-to-disc

brake conversions must be bolted, not welded to the axle/control arm/upright.

F. Air ducts may be fitted to the brakes, provided that no changes are made in the body/structure for their use.

They may serve no other purpose. Backing plates and dirt shields may be modified or removed.

G. A functional, redundant emergency (parking) brake must be present.

H. Brake calipers may be replaced, provided the number of pistons is equal to or greater than the original number

of pistons. Caliper mounting brackets may be replaced to accommodate this change, but may serve no other purpose.

Alternate caliper brackets must bolt to the original caliper bracket mounting location(s).

 

---

DJsilver

I don't mind it, but I don't think it's necessary.  I would not likely use this allowance if it passes.  My car just doesn't need it.  I know of a few local cars that really do need it.  Their brakes border on dangerous they are so bad.  I can see this used to save a few pounds by those with deep pockets.  Pedal feel and modulation may be able to be improved with some of the kits available, but I think there will be more people messing up the modulation and feel than will fix it.  Slapping on some bling big brake kit is a crap shoot if you don't do the research and have enough knowlege of braking systems to understand what you're doing.

---

Mike Minear

I wrote in my support for it.  I think a key part of this is that it will offer a good upgrade path for ST competitors who want to move up to SP.  Brake modifications are pretty common on the street among enthusiasts now and I tend to think they don't make a car faster as much as they make a fast driver faster. 

-N 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

Yep, my brakes work just fine as well.  I drive a Nissan 240sx and with all 89-98 models through two generations on one line I was able to mix and match parts to get what I wanted.  The only other upside for me would be using lighter parts.  I still commented in favor, just to keep ahead of STS

---

DJsilver

I as well commented in favor, as it makes for a natural progression from ST to SP.

---

#678 - 05 VW GTI 1.8T
NNJR - DSP

neilschelly:

I wrote in my support for it.  I think a key part of this is that it will offer a good upgrade path for ST competitors who want to move up to SP.  Brake modifications are pretty common on the street among enthusiasts now and I tend to think they don't make a car faster as much as they make a fast driver faster. 

-N 

 

^ that describes me pretty well :)  STX/STU both allow big brake kits and nearly all utilize two piece rotors- only makes sense that a higher prepped class would allow them as well- I sent my letter of support in

 

 

Panzer:

I as well commented in favor, as it makes for a natural progression from ST to SP.

How is SP supposed to be a "natural progression" for ST when not every car is even eligible to run in a Street Touring class?  ST isn't even a natural progression for all Stock-class cars.

neilschelly:

I wrote in my support for it.  I think a key part of this is that it will offer a good upgrade path for ST competitors who want to move up to SP. 

STS and STS2 don't allow brake upgrades.  They don't even allow update/backdate for brakes (or anything else).  Again, how would this rule be a "natural progression" or "good upgrade path" when HALF of the Street Touring classes aren't allowed any rotor or caliper upgrades?

This is just a rule that would force people to spend $1,000+ to do nothing more than save unsprung weight.

neilschelly:

Brake modifications are pretty common on the street among enthusiasts now

LOL!  "Billy Ricer can upgrade the brakes on his Civic so he can pimp through the McDonald's drive-thru faster ... why can't I do the same thing?"

Do you want to know what are common upgrades for my car (3rd generation F Body)?  Or a Corvette?

Pat

---

'92 Sentra SE-R, daily driver and track car
'82 Camaro Z28, ESP, 65% prepared, 50% ownership

Upset about Stock class proposals? Get PISST!

I 100% agree with Pat on this one.  The natural progression stuff makes no sense to me because not all cars can even run in ST.  Plus there aren't many cars that are competitive in 2 out of the 3 classes (stock, ST, and SP) never mind all 3 to progress in mods.  So who cares about progression if you have to buy a whole new car to "progress" in classes!

 

I agree that this proposal is for people to spend $$$$ to save unsprung weight.  That's where the performance benefit comes from.

---

Phil K.
2002 Camaro SS, #68 ESP

slowSER:

How is SP supposed to be a "natural progression" for ST when not every car is even eligible to run in a Street Touring class?

SP is a natural progression because all ST cars are eligible to run in SP.   The other direction makes no sense?

slowSER:

STS and STS2 don't allow brake upgrades.

A lot of people new to the sport come into ST right away because of common modifications to cars.  If they have brake upgrades, they go to STX.  Those competing in STS(2) can be eligible for STX too if they want to upgrade their brakes.  It makes sense to me that they should be able to then further progress to SP without having to downgrade their cars.

slowSER:

This is just a rule that would force people to spend $1,000+ to do nothing more than save unsprung weight.

The same can be said of any rule.  Those who will spend so much money to save weight will do so anyway, if not here, then elsewhere.

slowSER:

LOL!  "Billy Ricer can upgrade the brakes on his Civic so he can pimp through the McDonald's drive-thru faster ... why can't I do the same thing?"

That's just being inflammatory, but I guess it exposes the root of your complaint.  The purpose of street prepared was to be common street modifications, just like this.  If Billy Ricer has an interest in autocrossing, I welcome him to come in and learn to drive and hope he doesn't have to get too outclassed because of a brake upgrade that probably won't help him much anyway.

slowSER:

Do you want to know what are common upgrades for my car (3rd generation F Body)?  Or a Corvette?

Every car has its strengths and weaknesses.  No cars can take advantage of every rule to the fullest.  And some cars will be better off not taking advantage of some.  That's a given.
-N 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

neilschelly:

SP is a natural progression because all ST cars are eligible to run in SP.   The other direction makes no sense?

No it doesn't make sense.  Street Touring and Street Prepared are two different rulesets.  Prepared class isn't built around the Street Prepared ruleset.  Modified isn't built around the Prepared ruleset.

neilschelly:

A lot of people new to the sport come into ST right away because of common modifications to cars.  If they have brake upgrades, they go to STX. 

"A lot"?  What is "a lot"?  Half?  A third?  A tenth?  Do you have any data? 

Where do the newbies with modified Corvettes, Lotus Elises, Porsches, S2000s, late model Miatas, Solstices and Mitsubishi Evos go?  I'm not sure if "a lot" of newbies show up with these cars, but I'm sure "some" do.  That's just off the top of my head. 

At the autocross I went to Sunday, there were novices with a turbo Impreza 2.5 RS, an S2000, M Coupe and 911.  Geez, none legal for Street Touring, the saving class for all autocross newbies.

neilschelly:

 Those competing in STS(2) can be eligible for STX too if they want to upgrade their brakes.  It makes sense to me that they should be able to then further progress to SP without having to downgrade their cars.

Those competiting in STX can run in Street Prepared with R- compound tires and don't have to "downgrade" their cars.  But this isn't about "upgrading" or "downgrading" cars.  This is about trying to bring in a rule from a different level of preparation.  Don't rules creep Street Prepared with Street Touring rules.

neilschelly:

Those who will spend so much money to save weight will do so anyway, if not here, then elsewhere.

Sticky tires have have a HUGE impact on braking performance.  You want your *ST car to brake better?  Slap on a set of R-compounds.  When people are already maxing their wheel and tire size (which is fairly unlimited in *SP) changing to bigger brake rotors and calipers isn't going to have much of an impact on braking performance.

Like I said, this proposal is about spending four figures just to save a few pounds of unsprung weight.

neilschelly:

The purpose of street prepared was to be common street modifications, just like this. 

You just described Street Touring!  From the rulebook: "This category [Street Touring] provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using affordable sports sedans equipped with common suspension, engine, and appearance modifications ..."

Have you read the rulebook?  It's free to download at scca.com.  I'll save you some time.  From the Street Prepared section:  "The original concept of this category as made up predominantly of street-driven vehicles has been rendered inappropriate." 

neilschelly:

 If Billy Ricer has an interest in autocrossing, I welcome him to come in and learn to drive and hope he doesn't have to get too outclassed because of a brake upgrade that probably won't help him much anyway.

The purpose of the SCCA Solo rules is NOT to tailor them so that all newbies are immediately competitive with whatever car they show up with at their first autocross.  This brake upgrade rule is not about attracting newbies (nor should any rule be, IMO). 

Pat

---

'92 Sentra SE-R, daily driver and track car
'82 Camaro Z28, ESP, 65% prepared, 50% ownership

Upset about Stock class proposals? Get PISST!

Let's take a longer quote than the one you did.  I'll save you from reading the rule book too.

The Street Touring category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using affordable sports sedans equipped with common suspension,...

You conveniently snipped the sentence before your quote because it directly conflicted with your idea that there isn't any natural progression from S->ST->SP->SM, etc...  Your right that the rules shouldn't be tailored to making newbies competitive their first time, but it should keep in mind that it's a bad idea to chase them away when they are responsible for the longevity of the club.

By the way, I've got a <2700 lb car with 245mm wide Hoosiers in SP.  I'm planning to try out those 275s next year.  As it is, I cannot lock up a tire on braking for the life of me.  I coast to a stop.  I might be able to get a softer pad, but generally speaking the Porterfields are pretty good.  It would be nice to just get some bigger discs for my car and upgrade to the 2-piston calipers from an 2.5RS that are a direct replacement for mine.  I'd appreciate the extra bite they can give me.  This isn't just about lightening a car.  There are good reasons that I have at least to want to upgrade my braking performance.

You have your opinion and I have mine.  I hope your argument to the SEB is as inflammatory and insulting as your argument here, as that will probably support my opinion more in the long run.

-N 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

neilschelly:

Let's take a longer quote than the one you did.  I'll save you from reading the rule book too.

The Street Touring category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using affordable sports sedans equipped with common suspension,...

You conveniently snipped the sentence before your quote because it directly conflicted with your idea that there isn't any natural progression from S->ST->SP->SM, etc...  Your right that the rules shouldn't be tailored to making newbies competitive their first time, but it should keep in mind that it's a bad idea to chase them away when they are responsible for the longevity of the club.

Ah yes, the wonderful "intent" of a class.  If that truly was the intent of ST, then the SEB wouldn't of allowed brakes in ST or one control arm change in the first place.  The intent of a class changes all the time.  I'm sure I can dig out a 90's rule book and find the intent of SP to be for street driven cars, while the current rulebook basically tosses that out the window.

 

The progression is only for people that have certain cars, because a lot of cars aren't even allowed in ST.  To me this makes the whole progression idea pointless.

---

Phil K.
2002 Camaro SS, #68 ESP

pknowles:

Ah yes, the wonderful "intent" of a class.  If that truly was the intent of ST, then the SEB wouldn't of allowed brakes in ST or one control arm change in the first place.  The intent of a class changes all the time.  I'm sure I can dig out a 90's rule book and find the intent of SP to be for street driven cars, while the current rulebook basically tosses that out the window.

 

The progression is only for people that have certain cars, because a lot of cars aren't even allowed in ST.  To me this makes the whole progression idea pointless.

I didn't bring up the intent of the class - I was supporting that I saw SP as a natural progression for many ST competitors.  Just because all SP cars can't start as ST cars, all ST cars can become SP cars - that's the progression. 

 Anyway, I didn't bring up the intent stuff - I showed my support for it with why I think an SP car should be allowed these mods and how I don't expect they'll give any significant advantage to anyone except those with inferior brake setups, and only then if the driver is good enough to get faster with better brakes.   

-N 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

neilschelly:

You conveniently snipped the sentence before your quote because it directly conflicted with your idea that there isn't any natural progression from S->ST->SP->SM, etc... 

You know what I didn't snip?  The part where it says SP "should be a natural progression" (or any words to that effect) for ST cars, but you still don't see it because that isn't in the rule book.  It says "between" Stock and Street Prepared.  It says absolutely nothing that ST cars should be given the competitive window to move to Street Prepared.  Between, like, a whole 'nuther separate class between Stock and SP. 

Again, using your logic, ST should be a place for all Stock-class cars move up to since there's that "natural progression" ladder.  But that is not the case (Corvettes, Porsches, yada yada yada).

neilschelly:

By the way, I've got a <2700 lb car with 245mm wide Hoosiers in SP.  I'm planning to try out those 275s next year.  As it is, I cannot lock up a tire on braking for the life of me.  I coast to a stop.  I might be able to get a softer pad, but generally speaking the Porterfields are pretty good. 

So?

neilschelly:

I hope your argument to the SEB is as inflammatory and insulting as your argument here, as that will probably support my opinion more in the long run.

Everybody's entitled to their own opinions even if they are wrong.

Pat

---

'92 Sentra SE-R, daily driver and track car
'82 Camaro Z28, ESP, 65% prepared, 50% ownership

Upset about Stock class proposals? Get PISST!

slowSER:

neilschelly:

By the way, I've got a <2700 lb car with 245mm wide Hoosiers in SP.  I'm planning to try out those 275s next year.  As it is, I cannot lock up a tire on braking for the life of me.  I coast to a stop.  I might be able to get a softer pad, but generally speaking the Porterfields are pretty good. 

So?

That's part of my justification for the rule.  I think there's an actual use for brake upgrades in SP other than just reducing weight as you suggested.  There are cars in SP that just don't have what I consider adequate brakes as compared to the rest of the upgrade allowances.  I think brakes are left behind.

I'm explaining this further only because you asked, though I suspect that you were being rhetorical or at least sarcastic.  Consider it for the benefit of others then... If you want to reply to me again and further insult me, consider reading over this thread again and notice that nothing was said to cause you so much irritation except that others have different opinions from you on a recommendation that the SEB is asking for opinions on.  If your opinion was the only valid one, I find it hard to believe it would be up for debate.

-N
 

---

#128 FSP - '99 Soloru Wagon - NER

neilschelly:

neilschelly:

By the way, I've got a <2700 lb car with 245mm wide Hoosiers in SP.  I'm planning to try out those 275s next year.  As it is, I cannot lock up a tire on braking for the life of me.  I coast to a stop.  I might be able to get a softer pad, but generally speaking the Porterfields are pretty good. 

That's part of my justification for the rule.  I think there's an actual use for brake upgrades in SP other than just reducing weight as you suggested.  There are cars in SP that just don't have what I consider adequate brakes as compared to the rest of the upgrade allowances.  I think brakes are left behind

There is an actual use for a lot of upgrades to an SP car, but you have to draw the line somewhere.  I could use another 50hp from changing engine internals, another 300 lb of weight reduction from removing stuff, could use another 30 lb reduction in unsprung weight.  All of these things I could use to be faster, but I don't think it would be good to open the flood gates in SP.  We have already had a lot of changes recently in SP.

 

 I have a 3400lb car with 315 wide Hoosier A6's (hell on brakes) and I can get into the ABS easily when the pads heat up a little.  That is with Hawk HP+ pads in the front and stock pads in the rear.  What type of Porterfields do you have?  I had a set of their Carbon Kevlar pads and was not impressed.  Sure they were better then stock, but not near as good as the HP+'s I have now.

---

Phil K.
2002 Camaro SS, #68 ESP