Sunoco 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 23 Nov 2012 05:11 PM by  TeamRX8
FastTrack aero proposal
 46 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 3123 > >>
Author Messages
solo-x
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1244


--
23 May 2012 11:32 AM

    FYI, the latest FastTrack has a proposal regarding aero in SP. Please be sure to send your letters in so your voice can be heard! www.sebscca.com

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1817


    --
    23 May 2012 01:04 PM
    My internet must be broken because I don't see 'Option 3: Allow wings'
    mrazny
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:462


    --
    23 May 2012 03:08 PM

    maybe the fear is that the wings won't let the cars fit in their trailers :)

    cdlong
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:74


    --
    23 May 2012 03:13 PM

    Would it be correct to assume that option 2 would remove the original 15.2.I.1 and 2 so that aftermarket splitters and lexan spoilers would no longer be allowed?

    Option 2 is the ST wording, is it not? A step toward getting ST/SP in line with the class hopping sounds like a good thing.

    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1817


    --
    23 May 2012 03:21 PM
    cdlong wrote:

    A step toward getting ST/SP in line with the class hopping sounds like a good thing.

    Why?

    solo-x
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1244


    --
    23 May 2012 03:43 PM
    cdlong wrote:

    Would it be correct to assume that option 2 would remove the original 15.2.I.1 and 2 so that aftermarket splitters and lexan spoilers would no longer be allowed?

    Option 2 is the ST wording, is it not? A step toward getting ST/SP in line with the class hopping sounds like a good thing.

    That is correct.

    solo-x
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1244


    --
    23 May 2012 03:46 PM
    The Nebulizer wrote:
    My internet must be broken because I don't see 'Option 3: Allow wings'

    The request was to remove the contradiction between the intent and the allowance, so that is what we're looking at with the proposal. Opening the allowance further has not been proposed, thus no option 3. Might want to see what happens with this proposal before sending in a letter to allow SM style wings. [;)]

    snaponbob
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2862


    --
    23 May 2012 05:25 PM
    solo-x wrote:
    cdlong wrote:

    Would it be correct to assume that option 2 would remove the original 15.2.I.1 and 2 so that aftermarket splitters and lexan spoilers would no longer be allowed?

    Option 2 is the ST wording, is it not? A step toward getting ST/SP in line with the class hopping sounds like a good thing.

    That is correct.

    Which question are you answering? If it is the currently allowed splitters and lexan spoilers, the proposal is a "take back", right?

    BigEnos
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:570


    --
    23 May 2012 05:44 PM
    snaponbob wrote:
    solo-x wrote:
    cdlong wrote:

    Would it be correct to assume that option 2 would remove the original 15.2.I.1 and 2 so that aftermarket splitters and lexan spoilers would no longer be allowed?

    Option 2 is the ST wording, is it not? A step toward getting ST/SP in line with the class hopping sounds like a good thing.

    That is correct.

    Which question are you answering? If it is the currently allowed splitters and lexan spoilers, the proposal is a "take back", right?

    I think he is answering both, but to be specific, a preference expressed for option #2 would be a vote for a "take back."

    bradowen
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:1


    --
    23 May 2012 08:12 PM

    I'm clearly in the option 1 camp, then going to option 3 camp of full wings. But option 3 is a different post. :)

    Even if I liked option 2 the paragraph starting with a 1 just seems to reiterate update/backdate. Or am I missing something? Why does the option to clear up the wording of the original have wording that will just need to be cleaned up later?

    All that matters for option 2 is the last 2 paragraphs. That I can add accessory bits from the US catalog if I install them as directed. Ok, that is kind of cool I guess. But now I have to go dig up accessory catalogs that are 20+ years old to be able to see what my competitors are going to be up to. It is one thing to do it Stock/ST where the cars tend to be newer (STC excluded of course) and catalogs are not so old. But a lot of SP cars are much older and no one was keeping those since they have ever been needed before.

    Second issue is now if I want to try out areo on the car I have to try to source one of these bit. Since it came from the factory or someone took the time to reproduce one from the factory I'm guessing it is going to be a more expensive than some alumalite, aluminum stock, lexan, etc. that most of these bits are currently made from on SP cars.

    BigEnos
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:570


    --
    23 May 2012 08:27 PM
    Write letters. What you write here is nice, but it doesn't "count." Just a friendly reminder from your neighborhood SPAC member.
    cdlong
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:74


    --
    23 May 2012 11:58 PM
    bradowen, nothing allowed in option 2 would make a damn bit of difference for an SP car. It would be a waste of time to dig up and test old stock aero parts. It is the ST wording (except they spelled "scoops" right) which was a bone thrown to the miata and s2000 guys and a little bit of freedom to run "bodykits" as the class originally intended. You're right though, paragraph 1 is redundant with UD/BD, but allowing accessory catalogue stuff is good.

    Getting ST/SP in line with the class step system would simplify the rule book and make the class progression more straight forward. making class progression easier would theoretically increase SP participation. It's almost there already, just a few tweaks would make it work. A take back on the splitters/spoilers wouldn't be necessary for that either.
    SMSupercoupe
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:195


    --
    24 May 2012 07:58 AM
    So option 2 would eliminate front splitters and blade-style spoilers?

    I'm all for allowing the removal of factory rear wings, but I'd like to be able to add a blade spoiler, or even a wing. I may write in and suggest as much.
    solo-x
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1244


    --
    24 May 2012 11:05 AM
    BigEnos wrote:
    snaponbob wrote:
    solo-x wrote:
    cdlong wrote:

    Would it be correct to assume that option 2 would remove the original 15.2.I.1 and 2 so that aftermarket splitters and lexan spoilers would no longer be allowed?

    Option 2 is the ST wording, is it not? A step toward getting ST/SP in line with the class hopping sounds like a good thing.

    That is correct.

    Which question are you answering? If it is the currently allowed splitters and lexan spoilers, the proposal is a "take back", right?

    I think he is answering both, but to be specific, a preference expressed for option #2 would be a vote for a "take back."

    Yeah, I was answering both. Option 2 would be a "take back" that would make it so splitters and barn door spoilers would no longer be legal.

    Good point on the opening paragraph of Option 2 being redundant with UD/BD. If Option 2 is the one everyone wants, that would be cleaned up before going to the rulebook.

    And yes, please write your letters! It doesn't take but a minute, and you're not allowed to complain if you didn't say anything when you had the chance!

    SMSupercoupe
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:195


    --
    24 May 2012 09:11 PM
    If option 2 passes, will that specifically allow for removal of non-optional factory wings that contain a third brake light?

    Example: Fourth-gen Camaro.
    BigEnos
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:570


    --
    25 May 2012 08:18 PM
    SMSupercoupe wrote:
    If option 2 passes, will that specifically allow for removal of non-optional factory wings that contain a third brake light?

    Example: Fourth-gen Camaro.

    Yes, though I'm suddenly not a fan of that because it would remove the HMTSL on that car. Oddly, that will probably disable your ABS, too. I saw that happen to a friend's RR car when he replaced the hatch with a full plexi/fiberglass lift-off unit. We had to rewire the third brake light to the roll cage to get it back. Go figure.

    SMSupercoupe
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:195


    --
    25 May 2012 08:52 PM
    HMTSL?
    Cr0usEEE
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:298


    --
    25 May 2012 09:58 PM
    High Mount Stop Lamp - Usually it is HMSL but Brian is failing at alphabet soup today =P
    snaponbob
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2862


    --
    25 May 2012 10:24 PM

    A letter surplus.

    BigEnos
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:570


    --
    26 May 2012 09:17 AM
    Cr0usEEE wrote:
    High Mount Stop Lamp - Usually it is HMSL but Brian is failing at alphabet soup today =P

    High Mount Third Stop Lamp.

    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 3123 > >>


    Sunoco 88x31 Button
    Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
    G-Loc Button Vorshlag 88x31 Button
    Leroy Engineering Micro Button

    Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

    SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

    Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



    Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner