Region only mod allowance: CDV delete

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:52 pm

DanDurusky wrote:

yeh. thats thing i guess. i dont think is a big deal, its not national or pro or anything of rediculous importance to me. its just "us" having fun

BUT i realize what think doesnt matter to anyone else so thats why i'm trying to do this the 'right' way. if you guys say, OK, then great i'm happy. if not then, i guess i'll have to put it back, but i'll be grumpy and give everybody dirty looks

if this was serious national competition then OF COURSE it matters and of course thered be no allowances.. but i just dont see this as that.

Kinda dismissing the club and the people that are competing in it. Ok, if it is as you say it is, then just run SM. What is the big deal. You get to play and you do not put peer pressue on other members. Sounds more stand up than whining and giving dirty looks.

I think it also comes down to the competitor. Do we veiw the baseball players' accomplishments the same knowing they were on steroids?

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:52 pm

I think the rules discussion usually goes like this:

We follow the SCCA rules because it's easy on our part, and it allows members from other clubs to run at our events with no classing confusion. Since we are not affliated with the SCCA, we are free to produce whatever rules we would like. To this date, no one has stepped up to perform the task of rule develop and maintaining the rules.

Dan, are you volunteering?

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:54 pm

Dan,

Hey I should have said this earlier....

1. I was just poking fun at you. This type of thread shows up every so often and usually turns into a semi-flame fest.

2. Thank you for actually trying to contact the SEB for a clarification as well as asking about it instead of just making the mod and not saying anything. :thumbsup:

DanDurusky · **Joined:** Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:31 pm **Posts:** 686

I see. yeh, i can see how making allowances can lead to trouble/hassle/drama, etc. but as someone who wants it, i owed it to myself to at least ask

i didnt know if this was routine and had a process, etc or not.

I didnt mean to 'belittle' this. the only reason i'm not as serious is because i'm not a good

but now that i see where this is going i guess i'll put it back. id only want it out if it was somehow 'official' i think so people couldnt hang it over my head, etc.

if Mike can live w/ it, i can live w/ it.

(see grasshopper learn)

P.S. the dirty looks commment was a joke

its everyones RIGHT to have fair law abiding competition

Chris Landi · **Joined:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:31 pm **Posts:** 579

DanDurusky wrote:

To be honest id probably run BSP if it was approved because SM is just silly imho,

Uhm, what's silly about SM? I'm running comfort and convenience mods suspension-wise so I would be there without the exhaust and tweaking that I did. It's a fun place to play..

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:56 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

I think the rules discussion usually goes like this:

We follow the SCCA rules because it's easy on our part, and it allows members from other clubs to run at our events with no classing confusion. Since we are not affliated with the SCCA, we are free to produce whatever rules we would like. To this date, no one has stepped up to perform the task of rule develop and maintaining the rules.

Dan, are you volunteering?

If this were to happen, I'd find another club to run with. It's too difficult to manage to the SCCA rules and have a different rule set for the local stuff. - AB

Rich Anderson · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:59 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

If this were to happen, I'd find another club to run with. It's too difficult to manage to the SCCA rules and have a different rule set for the local stuff. - AB

Don't you run someone elses car at this point making this statement kind of pointless? :brow:

Brian Herring · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:02 pm

Chris Landi wrote:

DanDurusky wrote:

To be honest id probably run BSP if it was approved because SM is just silly imho,

Uhm, what's silly about SM? I'm running comfort and convenience mods suspension-wise so I would be there without the exhaust and tweaking that I did. It's a fun place to play..

Uh... Chris, you car is BSP legal this year

Boost == IN
Steering Rack bushings == IN

Am I missing something or thinking incorrectly here?

- dow

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:04 pm

DanDurusky wrote:

I see. yeh, i can see how making allowances can lead to trouble/hassle/drama, etc. but as someone who wants it, i owed it to myself to at least ask

i didnt know if this was routine and had a process, etc or not.

I didnt mean to 'belittle' this. the only reason i'm not as serious is because i'm not a good

but now that i see where this is going i guess i'll put it back. id only want it out if it was somehow 'official' i think so people couldnt hang it over my head, etc.

if Mike can live w/ it, i can live w/ it.

(see grasshopper learn)

P.S. the dirty looks commment was a joke

its everyones RIGHT to have fair law abiding competition

Dan - we all deal with these issues. And all of us think there are certain rules that are silly. So you are in good company.

Another option is to put it in for AX only and take it out for daily driving. If you are only racing once a month, it is not that big of a deal. You may want it in there for racing any ways. If you are launching at higher rpms and with grippier tires, your transmission might thank up. I know what happens when trannies get upset and abused :shock:

Keith Vail · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:12 pm

Brian Herring wrote:

Chris Landi wrote:

DanDurusky wrote:

To be honest id probably run BSP if it was approved because SM is just silly imho,

Uhm, what's silly about SM? I'm running comfort and convenience mods suspension-wise so I would be there without the exhaust and tweaking that I did. It's a fun place to play..

Uh... Chris, you car is BSP legal this year

Boost == IN
Steering Rack bushings == IN

Am I missing something or thinking incorrectly here?

- dow

No Brian your right his car is BSP legal as of next year. Dan I understand your complaint about some of the rules. I was taking hell on the SCCAforums because I am running the original springs on the miata with 92,000 miles on it. Everyone was telling me that I better get new springs because the ones I have, have probably sagged a little and thus given me an protestable car. I checked up on the price and there is no way I am spending over $500 on new springs for the miata. Instead I have been measuring ride heights on several different miatas recently, and this winter I will remount the factory Bilsteins on the springs measure ride heights and then remount the Konis and figure out the proper ride height I need. Man this is a lot of work to stay legal. I knew there was a reason I haven't run stock class before. :lol:

But in the end I am going to run National events next year so I would be really pissed if I got protested because my car is slightly lower than when new due to sagging springs. I just figured I would let you know your not the only one with car dilemmas.

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:15 pm

I dont see THSCC making a "special" rule regarding ANYTHING like this in the future. Agreements amongnst competitors are just that. If an out of towner comes in and wants to cause a stink....

Honestly, take a hard look at SM. There is no HUGE overdog, several season trophy winners ran street tires. You can do a WHOLE LOT to the car. I personally know most of the guys and they would be a hoot to race with.

DanDurusky · **Joined:** Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:31 pm **Posts:** 686

Chris, i don't want to be in SM because id get eaten up by 400hp STIs w/ my car that isnt even STU prepped! hah

^^wow! that is serious.

^hrmm well maybe i'll look into SM, but then id be obligated to get cams and all sorts of fun expensive things.. it could get ugly. i'm pretty sure STU is the place for me. i just need to figure out how to get there. and i guess thi avenue is exhausted so unless SCCA is good to us w/ the '06 rules (where can i see them, btw?) it looks like i'll just put the damn thing back in. *glares at BMW, not Jim* :lol:

Jason Mauldin · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:16 pm

Keith Vail wrote:

Everyone was telling me that I better get new springs because the ones I have, have probably sagged a little and thus given me an protestable car.

I hope none of your suspension bushings have lost any of the rubber material over time. Otherwise you would be changing the rubber to metal ratio.

Chris Landi · **Joined:** Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:31 pm **Posts:** 579

Brian Herring wrote:

Chris Landi wrote:

DanDurusky wrote:

To be honest id probably run BSP if it was approved because SM is just silly imho,

Uhm, what's silly about SM? I'm running comfort and convenience mods suspension-wise so I would be there without the exhaust and tweaking that I did. It's a fun place to play..

Uh... Chris, you car is BSP legal this year

Boost == IN
Steering Rack bushings == IN

Am I missing something or thinking incorrectly here?

- dow

I'll have to see if anyone else is running BSP. I don't care about PAX, I'd just like to have several people in the class.

*runs off to start a new thread*

jimpastorius · **Posted:** Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:21 pm

Jason Mauldin wrote:

Keith Vail wrote:

Everyone was telling me that I better get new springs because the ones I have, have probably sagged a little and thus given me an protestable car.

I hope none of your suspension bushings have lost any of the rubber material over time. Otherwise you would be changing the rubber to metal ratio.

You guys are both off base. Sagging springs are not protestable, especially if they are stock. Secondly, if they are the stock bushing and have worn you are okay.

Either way, if you have worn bushings and sagging springs you would want to replace those or no one will notice you...you will be at the bottom of the pack and no one pays any mind to those drivers

THSCC Forums

Region only mod allowance: CDV delete

Who is online