SCCAForums.com

shinronin:

fyi, chike and i conferred via PM and submitted a proposal to the SEB and STAC members with his tire width limits for STX -- 235 for AWD and 255 for 2WD.  we proposed keeping the 8.0" limit for AWD and adding a 9.0" limit for 2WD cars.  i'm just waiting for a log #. 

 I thought that most STX wrxs ran 235/40-17 anyway...

 It would be interesting to try the 225/50-15 new toyo coming out on some wide 15" wheels on an STS civic, maybe staggering the 195 in the rear.

 -Brian
 

altiain:

I also submitted a proposal to move the RX-8 down to STX. I'll leave the E36 M3 proposal to one of the resident Bimmerphiles, since I'm not that familiar with the marque.

BrianGT:

shinronin:

fyi, chike and i conferred via PM and submitted a proposal to the SEB and STAC members with his tire width limits for STX -- 235 for AWD and 255 for 2WD.  we proposed keeping the 8.0" limit for AWD and adding a 9.0" limit for 2WD cars.  i'm just waiting for a log #. 

I thought that most STX wrxs ran 235/40-17 anyway...

righto, which is why i thought chike's tire proposal was a very good one as it leveraged the current STX WRX tire choice. 

BrianGT:

shinronin:

fyi, chike and i conferred via PM and submitted a proposal to the SEB and STAC members with his tire width limits for STX -- 235 for AWD and 255 for 2WD.  we proposed keeping the 8.0" limit for AWD and adding a 9.0" limit for 2WD cars.  i'm just waiting for a log #. 

 I thought that most STX wrxs ran 235/40-17 anyway...

 It would be interesting to try the 225/50-15 new toyo coming out on some wide 15" wheels on an STS civic, maybe staggering the 195 in the rear.

 -Brian
 

I wonder if an STS car with a diff and wider tires would be able to make up the pax difference between STS and STX.  It looks like it is only a .25 sec time difference on a 50sec course with the pax this year.

 -Brian
 

EDIT, the rules state that you can run aluminum rotors, but can you run aluminum drums in STX?

14.12.7. Brake rotors may be replaced with any rotor of equal or larger
diameter made from a ferrous or aluminum alloy. Calipers are
unrestricted, but must mount to the original attachment points.
Drum brakes may be replaced with disk brakes of a diameter
equal to or greater than the inside diameter of the standard
drum part. Brake backing plates (dust shields) may be modified
the minimum amount necessary to accommodate allowed alternate
rotors and calipers.

I am curious, as I have a set of 1g crx hf aluminum drums in my basement that appear to have the same inner diameter... 

BrianGT:

 
EDIT, the rules state that you can run aluminum rotors, but can you run aluminum drums in STX?

I am curious, as I have a set of 1g crx hf aluminum drums in my basement that appear to have the same inner diameter... 

A drum is not a rotor.  Allowance is specific to rotors.  Therefore drums must be OE.

But in STX you are allowed to replace the drum brakes with no-OE discs.  So you can get your weight savings that way.

--Andy
 

Andy Hollis:

A drum is not a rotor.  Allowance is specific to rotors.  Therefore drums must be OE.

But in STX you are allowed to replace the drum brakes with no-OE discs.  So you can get your weight savings that way.

--Andy
 

I've yet to see a drum to disk swap on the rear of a Honda that comes out lighter than the OEM drums.  Only reason people do it is for easy maint.

tkm:

Andy Hollis:

A drum is not a rotor.  Allowance is specific to rotors.  Therefore drums must be OE.

But in STX you are allowed to replace the drum brakes with no-OE discs.  So you can get your weight savings that way.

--Andy
 

I've yet to see a drum to disk swap on the rear of a Honda that comes out lighter than the OEM drums.  Only reason people do it is for easy maint.

Would swapping to discs even be legal, as it would require swapping the arms, and would move the wheels further inboard a bit IIRC.     
 

shinronin:

fyi, chike and i conferred via PM and submitted a proposal to the SEB and STAC members with his tire width limits for STX -- 235 for AWD and 255 for 2WD.  we proposed keeping the 8.0" limit for AWD and adding a 9.0" limit for 2WD cars.  i'm just waiting for a log #. 

piknockout:

That's all great...if you're not FWD.

That is fair. ST classes are all about being traction-limited, but big FWD cars really get the short end of the stick. Here is my question to you (and other FWD drivers): How much tire can you fit under your fenders without hacking them up? Are there any FWD cars that can fit 255's? It seems like many of them are a little small in the fender department. Lord knows my Mini doesn't have much space. Would giving FWD cars more than 245 even matter? This is getting way OT though. Mebbe we should start a big-heavy-FWD-in-ST thread?

- Bret 

BlueMaxx9:

piknockout:

That's all great...if you're not FWD.

That is fair. ST classes are all about being traction-limited, but big FWD cars really get the short end of the stick. Here is my question to you (and other FWD drivers): How much tire can you fit under your fenders without hacking them up? Are there any FWD cars that can fit 255's? It seems like many of them are a little small in the fender department. Lord knows my Mini doesn't have much space. Would giving FWD cars more than 245 even matter? This is getting way OT though. Mebbe we should start a big-heavy-FWD-in-ST thread?

- Bret 

Well, realistically a 255/265 tire won't help FWD cars (which ones are even on 235's at this point).  Some large ones may be able to fit them, but what FWD car over 2600lbs has ever been competitive in an autox event...  None of the cars you can think of that would be a front-running challenge can take advantage of such an allowance.

tkm:

BlueMaxx9:

piknockout:

That's all great...if you're not FWD.

That is fair. ST classes are all about being traction-limited, but big FWD cars really get the short end of the stick. Here is my question to you (and other FWD drivers): How much tire can you fit under your fenders without hacking them up? Are there any FWD cars that can fit 255's? It seems like many of them are a little small in the fender department. Lord knows my Mini doesn't have much space. Would giving FWD cars more than 245 even matter? This is getting way OT though. Mebbe we should start a big-heavy-FWD-in-ST thread?

- Bret 

Well, realistically a 255/265 tire won't help FWD cars (which ones are even on 235's at this point).  Some large ones may be able to fit them, but what FWD car over 2600lbs has ever been competitive in an autox event...  None of the cars you can think of that would be a front-running challenge can take advantage of such an allowance.

 

For reference, my car will be running 245/40/17's this year on 17x8's.  I ran 235/40's last year.  I weighed in at the NE Divisionals at 2,650 with 1/4 tank of gas.  With a new battery/exhaust and other items I should be fairly close to 2,600lbs.  I could probably get away with 255's, but the problem is finding the proper wheel to fit it in the right bolt pattern (4x114.3) and offset that will allow enough camber up front (currently at -2.5 and running close to the strut).  The biggest weakness of the car is lack of powe (165whp in ST* trim)r, really short gearing (max 53mph in 2nd), and low redline (6,250rpms).  Oh yeah, not to mention the archaic rear beam trailing arm suspension with Scott-Russel linkage that weighs a ton and makes transitioning (especially slaloms) an excercise in snap oversteer.  The car has been very competitive locally (2006 Philly Champ/2007 WDCR Champ), but it will be interesting to see how badly I get my arse handed to me at Nationals next year.

 Also for additional reference, a good friend running a turboed 2001 Sentra SE is running 265 r-comps, but with 1" spacers up front and various cutting/bending/flaring to make it work.  So in ST* trim 265's would be out...but 255's "might" be a possibility.

So while I think I could fit it, it would be tight and no matter what trying to compete with turbo/awd goodness for top spot is a waste of time.  Still trying to figure out why I'm spending money on the car.  Oh yeah, because it really is a blast to drive, it's paid off, and I still have a lot to learn in the driving department.  In three years I'll have something that's a better fit for whatever stock/st/sp class it ends up in. *cough* STI/EVO *cough* 

BlueMaxx9:

piknockout:

That's all great...if you're not FWD.

That is fair. ST classes are all about being traction-limited, but big FWD cars really get the short end of the stick. Here is my question to you (and other FWD drivers): How much tire can you fit under your fenders without hacking them up? Are there any FWD cars that can fit 255's? It seems like many of them are a little small in the fender department. Lord knows my Mini doesn't have much space. Would giving FWD cars more than 245 even matter? This is getting way OT though. Mebbe we should start a big-heavy-FWD-in-ST thread?

- Bret 

An extention to that question is what FWD cars car fit 255s and not take a gearing hit? My Prelude might be able to fit a 255 at the front but no one makes a 245 or 255 that is short enough (it has a stupid 24" OD tires). 3.0L Nissan Maximas, & V6 Ford Contours are both in the same camp. The Mazda 6 might be able to fit a 255. But that is a real porker at ~3200 lbs IIRC.

Other big-heavy-FWD-in-ST cars of interest are the RSX (dunno about the 255s, has 25" OD tire stock, can fit 235/40/17), EP3 Civic Si (see RSX), 05+ Civic Si (see RSX), Integra (no way fitting 255s), 2.2L Impreza & Impreza RS (I dunno), Mazda 3 (I dunno, I think it has 25" OD tires), Focus (I dunno), Neon (I doubt it).

129STS:

Steve Ekstrand's STU SRT-4 had 275s upfront IIRC.

And how far off the pace was this car from the STS Civics?

While it's a fun exercise trying to guess which overweight FWD car can fit a 265, it doesn't mean 20 more mm of treadwidth is going to make them competitive.

And it's been said, you have to take a huge gearing hit to run such a wide tire.  I tested a 215/45/16 vs a 225/45/17 (same tire, both equal tread) on my (now retired) STX car and I found the 215/45/16 was faster in every situation.

Andy Hollis:

Well, what I would like to tone down is the signal-to-noise on things like cheating/policing accusations (you listening Fair? ) and alternative suggestions (redo ST completely, more classes, add more allowances, etc.)  All of the latter can easily have their own threads added for discussion.

--Andy 

Hehehe... who me? Complain about cheating? But as we can all see, NOBODY CHEATS in the SCCA! Because, umm.... some people said so. "What would be the point?"... oh good grief.

OK, point taken. Let's discuss the matters at hand.... well, we did have some great posts by RX8 drivers: Isley, Ian and Foley all made very good arguments to lump the underpowered RX8 in with the E36 M3, if it makes the step down to STX.

I also liked the suggestion to keep the current 2WD cars in STU, then bump all of the AWD turbo cars to some ST-NEW! class. A new top level ST class for the boost buggies would be great. Then I could see allowing in the 350Z, E46 M3 and a few other excluded 2WD cars into STU without disturbing the current STX class make-up. If another class is added maybe its time to go STA, STB, STC, etc. But we have to do this whole groundswell thing, and run for 3-4 years without a nationally recognized class (which makes it hard to attract entrants, sponsors, etc!), before more classes are added. We can get FSP and GP classes added overnight, but adding ST classes uses a whole different set of standards. Never mind that STU and STX were huge the last 2 years, and growing faster than just about any other classes...

But finally.... back on topic - sure, I'd still love to see the E36 M3 in STX, at the very least. Don't think it will win, but it would have a closer shot than it is now in STU. If nothing changes there won't be any 2WD cars in STU for long, anyways. None of the current crop has a chance of winning. That's pretty clear to the top competitors that were racing them - as they've all left the class.

 "Problem solved"

Fair:

well, we did have some great posts by RX8 drivers: Isley, Ian and Foley all made very good arguments to lump the underpowered RX8

I'm still mystified at how the RX8 could be considered underpowered in STU but the S2000 is actually excluded from even STU? Neither of them gain much power in ST trim, and the RX8 will gain more suspension help in ST* trim than the S2000, since the S2000 is starting from a stiffer place. I guess I don't see the 200lbs that the S2000 is lighter than a WRX overcoming the torque and AWD of the WRX, and certainly I don't see it doing a whole lot in STU.

Can someone help a n00b out here? 

murph1379:

Fair:

well, we did have some great posts by RX8 drivers: Isley, Ian and Foley all made very good arguments to lump the underpowered RX8

I'm still mystified at how the RX8 could be considered underpowered in STU but the S2000 is actually excluded from even STU?