Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm thinking about making the jump from ESP to STU at my local region's autocross events because I will be sticking with street tires and it PAXes better than ESP. The idea came when I realized at yesterday's autocross I had the 3rd fastest PAX time of the day and if I had been registered in STU I would have been 1/10th off of the fastest PAX time of the day and I would have still beaten the other guys in STU.

Looking around the rules it looks like all of the suspension mods we're allowed in ESP are also allowed in STU but it looks like I'll also be able to go with aftermarket lower control arms, can you guys think of any other things I'm overlooking when making this switch???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Maybe Sam or someone else can chime in on this thread.

Was 3.73 gears an option on 96 cobras? My 96 Cobra had 3.27 gears stock, I believe. I thought non-option gears threw you up to SM.

Aluminum rack bushings: Maybe I am missing something here thou:

2009 National Solo Rules
Street Tire Classes
14.8 SUSPENSION F. Solid metal bushings are specifically prohibited.
Street Prepared Classes
15.8 SUSPENSION E. Solid metal bushings are specifically prohibited.

Thou maybe your region has additional allowances....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
3.55's are the most rear gear I'm supposed to be allowed but no-one cares about the 3.73's because they are so close and the aluminum rack bushings are the same deal, no-one cares because they really aren't giving me much (if any) advantage over the poly ones that are allowed.

This isn't a car that will ever run on a national level and the region I run in is extremely laid back, there are a lot of us that have a small mod here or there that isn't technically legal but doesn't make us any faster so we overlook it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Subframe connectors are not legal in STU. The gears aren't a big deal, but the subframes would provide a distinct advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dammit, I completely forgot about that, CRAP!


ESP it is, good call brother :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dammit, I completely forgot about that, CRAP!


ESP it is, good call brother :)
I'm thinking about making the jump from ESP to STU at my local region's autocross events because I will be sticking with street tires and it PAXes better than ESP. The idea came when I realized at yesterday's autocross I had the 3rd fastest PAX time of the day and if I had been registered in STU I would have been 1/10th off of the fastest PAX time of the day and I would have still beaten the other guys in STU.

Looking around the rules it looks like all of the suspension mods we're allowed in ESP are also allowed in STU but it looks like I'll also be able to go with aftermarket lower control arms, can you guys think of any other things I'm overlooking when making this switch???
I don't want to throw a wet blanket on your fun. Usually the little variences from being class legal being passed over are for the guys who are new or are mid pack runners or below. Since you ARE pax'ing so close to the top you probably should get legal for the class. SM is where a number of our guys were due to them having subframes until the new rules came out. Some of them could go back to ESP but some of them had to go to CP due to their having cross braced subframes which aren't legal in ESP or SM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Ehhh, you have a convertible. Just toss some bolts somewhere in the lower frame and say "they're stock bolt sub-conn's." ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Eh, we all know that the SCCA rules lack a bit of ... perspective when it comes to your typical Mustang enthusiast and common mods. I understand fully that the SCCA has to make rules that cover so many makes and models that they can't make allowances for every make/model specific mod. But you have to admit some of the allowances and exceptions that are made for the common Mustang classes seem kind of silly at times.

For people on a local-only level it doesn't really matter if you have one or two "iffy" mods like a rear seat delete or 4.10 gears when update/backdate allows 3.73's. Big whoop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Ozz....i've tried to fight that battle before. To say I got led to a burning cross, crucified, buried in a septic tank and left to rot would be an understatement.

Choose your battles wisely when dealing with the SCCA hardcore's....that's all i'll say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
The dinosaur rules of the SCCA are why organizations like NASA are starting to attract many new racers to their events. Autocross unfortunately is still mostly SCCA dominated. You have to just accept that the fox and SN95 Mustang will never be given a competitive chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
the SCCA has to make rules that cover so many makes and models that they can't make allowances for every make/model specific mod. But you have to admit some of the allowances and exceptions that are made for the common Mustang classes seem kind of silly at times.
So where do you draw the line? Every class, not just SCCA, needs a specific limit of modifications. Even in rec. sports, where do we draw the line? A ball or bat that is not quite spec? And I wouldn't say that I'm hard core SCCA, but I am as far as building a car to a specific class and rule set, no matter what the governing group is. As you know, the ESP "allowances and exceptions", apply to every make and model, not just Mustangs. And in this case, SAAC is giving the Mustang a rule advantage in the suspension area to level the playing field with the f-bodies. When was the last time you saw Fox or SN95 with a factory 3 or 5-link? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
A few things important here.

1. Aluminum rack bushings are not legal in STU.... or ESP.

2. the SFC's were mentioned

3. An SN95 has a place to play competitively, ESP. If those of you that claim not to care and autox purely for fun are sincere then it shouldn't bother you anyway. Also SCCA is not the SN95 Car Club of America. There are marque clubs that take their ball and play their own game, like a lot of BMW and Porsche clubs because they don't like getting beat by other cars. Don't be like them.

4. If you do not have R-comps then yes, STU might well make more sense since there are more realistic street tires there vs. R's. But then again, you go from running against other pony-cars and a WRX here and there to Evo's and STi's that have way more traction and power to go with it and make better use of the less grippy street tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
So where do you draw the line? Every class, not just SCCA, needs a specific limit of modifications. Even in rec. sports, where do we draw the line? A ball or bat that is not quite spec? And I wouldn't say that I'm hard core SCCA, but I am as far as building a car to a specific class and rule set, no matter what the governing group is. As you know, the ESP "allowances and exceptions", apply to every make and model, not just Mustangs. And in this case, SAAC is giving the Mustang a rule advantage in the suspension area to level the playing field with the f-bodies. When was the last time you saw Fox or SN95 with a factory 3 or 5-link? ;)

Well said Hipogt. Shows a clear understanding the world does not revolve around him or his car (not that most in this thread think that, but some do).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Ring and Pinion gears are a good example of where the rules seem a tad silly. Why allow an update/backdate to 3.73's (SVO for the Foxes, Bullitt for the 99-04 guys and Track Pack option for the S197 guys) but not allow 4.10's, 4.30's, 3.90's etc.? Seems a little arbitrary to allow the ratio change but not to an aftermarket ratio.

Not that I really care, I only run locally and am too slow for anyone to question any mods I may or may not have anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
You pick your weapon, and you live with the rules. The rules are simply in SP. If it was an option in some other car that shares a line, it's ok.

Blame Ford if you want to, but the bottom line is that ratios are not free. And even when someone has options like 3.55, 3.73 or 4.10--they pretty much then want 3.90's instead. You can't make everyone happy all the time.

And fwiw, if that rule were in place, I'd have 4.10's in my Camaro--and believe me an LS1 with 4.10's benefits a huge amount from the stock 3.42's. Be careful what you wish for..... STi's with short gearing could then run taller ratios and not be forced into 3rd on faster courses. That helps them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
STU lends itself to benefiting the FI cars like Evos and Sti's because they can retune and run more boost, so they will legally make more power and have AWD.

Its nice that you can run in ESP, but you are limited to doing less than what most Mustang guys want. Heads, cams, etc. Of course the fact that the standard way to attach a TA on a Mustang isn't even legal in SM doesn't make it easier to swallow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
So where do you draw the line? Every class, not just SCCA, needs a specific limit of modifications. Even in rec. sports, where do we draw the line? A ball or bat that is not quite spec? And I wouldn't say that I'm hard core SCCA, but I am as far as building a car to a specific class and rule set, no matter what the governing group is. As you know, the ESP "allowances and exceptions", apply to every make and model, not just Mustangs. And in this case, SAAC is giving the Mustang a rule advantage in the suspension area to level the playing field with the f-bodies. When was the last time you saw Fox or SN95 with a factory 3 or 5-link? ;)
Take a look at how NASA classifies cars for their classes with the following link:

http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/Time-Trial-Classification-form.pdf

The classification NASA uses is for open track Time Trial classes, and some of the things they ask (dyno, etc) would be hard to ask for the average autocrosser, but it is cool to see a set of rules that allows a lot of different types of cars to compete against each other. You can see STI's, Mustangs, Corvettes, Porsches, and S2000s going head to head in the same class and on a relatively even performance level.

The SCCA is still fun. That's partly why I got a Z06. I did really well at the 2008 Dixie Tour running ASP with a car more setup for SS, but I have always wished there was a spot for the average street driven Mustang to compete without turning it into a race car. Having a chance to win is part of the fun. NASA seems to have taken that into account with their rules and classifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
739 Posts
Why do we go round and round about this? Show me a rulebook, and I'll show you someone who doesn't like something about it, or thinks his car is being ignored......

I look at NASA's rules and think they are pretty dumb. Points for parts, and in a lot of instances the points don't seem to match the performance gains gotten (or not). How is doing something, or a number of somethings that are small that add up to enough to bump you to a higher class any different than saying a car with a changed rear bar can't run stock category in SCCA?

Further NASA has no autox program that's worth a damn. And they are the new kids on the block. As they grow you will see more and more folks grumble about how this or that works there as well.

I'm not anti-NASA. I have been a member of NASA. Just saying that those who want to step up do and don't let rules they disagree with keep them from competing. And fwiw, I find it a big disingenuous to complain about the TA mounting rule... It came about because SFC's were finally made legal. It effected no car I can think of that ran Nationally, or even Divisionally. Most cars either use a Steeda 5 link or a stock 4 link with maybe some different upper arms (and those allowances are already far beyond what any other car got). So forgive me for not crying too hard about that.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,653 Posts
Maybe it's because you keep interpreting Mustang owners' angst about what constitutes illegality regarding the most common type of T/A mount with some desire for favorable treatment on the part of their owners.

Maybe it's because the SCCA's idea of what constituted a "street" level of preparedness hadn't kept pace in the least with the modifications enthusiasts routinely made to their honest-to-goodness "street" cars since about 1986, and when they finally caught up, they disallowed the most common playing-field-leveler because it constitutes "cross bracing", despite being bolted in place.

Maybe it's the ongoing irony of a guy who trailers his "Stock" car to events, and who buys what beats the class every year, always providing a yawning condescension toward those who would complain because the cars they drive on the street to events, and drive on the street virtually every day, are deemed to be cars not prepared to a "street" level by the SCCA.

Call me crazy, I don't know.



.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top