Jump to content

Super Touring Rules changes


clubracer6

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

Some new rules that many of us feel are going to break up the growing ST fields. While many of you probably have seen this, those who haven't should weigh in.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/autocrossing-and-roadracing/3011531-revised-nasa-st-rules-are-out.html

 

It was my first year in ST2 last year and I had a great time and was very happy I chose NASA over SCCA. I would hate to see the car counts go down...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year was my first year racing with Nasa and in ST2... everytime I ran the class, we had good participation and it was very competitive. We had 14 ST2 cars at Road Atlanta in June on Saturday and 13 in the class for Sunday.

 

Most of the time that I've seen rule changes, its because people have complained and asked for them. I don't know of anyone that has asked for these rule changes and in my honest opinion, its going to hurt the class. I was even wanting to put together a ST2 East Coast Championship to bring in even more drives to run in the class and go out and have fun. This may put a damper on that idea until I can see how this will shake out.

 

I think I can speak for a number of drivers in that we just want it simple, fair and good participation in the class we've been running in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Michael and Alex,

 

The rules were simple, and for some reason, a handful of people (or more), many who are now being fairly disrespectful toward me and NASA on the Corvette Forums, just didn't follow them. I will never understand why our drivers would rather go there and complain, than come here and discuss? All NASA did was to clarify them since people didn't understand that retaining an OEM part meant to retain the entire part (such as frame rails, floor pans, etc.). The few additions made to the ST Rules (roof line -0.4, rocker panel retention, inner fender well retention, windshield frame location retention) were all requested by the NASA Executives, not "Greg". I did not necessarily agree with all of them, but the Executives have good arguments for all of them for the long term health of the series. It is their final decision, and there were many weeks of debates and discussions about them.

 

The transmission tunnels were always treated by us as part of the floor, and were never allowed to be modded (except the mod listed in the Appendix for seat installation). The only reason that the 10" was ever listed for engine relocation was so someone would not create their own mid or rear engine vehicle from a front engine vehicle. Movements of the firewall were always limited by the lack of ability to modify the floor pan. So, basically, the rule allows for small mods to the firewall mostly to make motor swaps in some vehicles possible. Replacement of the Corvette floors with metal was a modification with a waiver that cost -0.4. It was dropped to -0.2. It is legal to add metal to the top of them, and as stated on the Corvette Forums, we have given a no-factor waiver to Brian to lower his seat as long as he left the bottom side of the floor untouched. No other cars are permitted to modify their floor pans, and while some on the Corvette Forums state that they don't hear anyone complaining about these mods, that may be because the BMW, Dodge, and Mazda guys don't go on the Corvette Forums. The inner fender well item seems to be what is all to often a typical response that I see from some of our competitors. Instead of coming to us, the way that Jody just did, and clarify, they listen to some guys that seemingly would like nothing better than to destroy the series and increase the car counts where they race. They go half-cocked about plastic fender liners, and then our drivers start taking them at their word. Where does it say anything about "plastic fender liners"? It says "inner fender wells". I suppose that better terminology would have been "inboard aspect of the fender wells". This rule is directly in response to both Corvettes and other model vehicles that were having their inner fender wells moved inboard (known as "tubbing") to accommodate larger wheels and tires than would otherwise be possible with that model vehicle. I don't know many race cars where the plastic linings of the fender wells survive. Competitors were even doing this on the rear, and then cutting out part of their floor pan to accommodate the movement of the inner fender well--again, obviously not legal in ST to most of us due to the floor pan mod, but not to others.

 

I see arguments that none of these things matter now, and it is just forcing some cars to either be modified back to OEM or go to STR. Well, NASA has seen the death of too many series because they allow the small things to slip at first to bend over for the "customer", and the slippery slope gets steeper, and then someone comes out with a literal "class killer" that then requires everyone to either do another $80,000 in mods to keep up, or leave. We do not have a problem with everyone going to STR now if that is what they want to do. If they are not worried about these mods, and they don't have "real" STR cars in their region yet, then convince everyone to run in STR for the season. It will give some extra time to fix any issues that the cars have. But, be aware that when fully prepped STR cars do show up, it won't be close.

 

For those that are asking why we don't just add a Mod Factor for STR cars, and let all cars run together, the answer is that we originally had intended on doing so. However, our research found that there was not going to be anyway to keep things fair for all. A full stock car in STR2, like the ASC cars or Pro Trucks, would have required a Mod Factor of about -1.7 to equalize it with ST2 cars, but a car like the Mazda 7's Only cars or Panoz would have been more like -0.4 to -0.75. So, we would have either gotten complaints from the GT2 type cars that they had too big a Mod Factor if it was -1.7, or we would have had complaints from everyone that the stock cars are killing their Production Touring series. So, we have kept them apart. As both series develop, there is always the chance that when we have our own data based on cars prepped for both series, that we may be able to combine them again somehow, but I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick and well thought out reply - I do appreciate it. NASA has not been perfect, but I do like that when you contact someone at NASA the response is typically very quick. Another club I have run with in the past could learn a lot from this.

 

As a racer it would be great if there was a way to have the two groups run together and I feel the same way about SCCA's STO and GT2 class. They have 911 GT3 Cup cars racing in GT2 now, so why not keep going down that road.

 

I don't see club racing participation numbers growing to where they were before the recession, so we need to get back to having bigger class car counts somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Also, we always can appreciate a respectful discussion here on the ST Forums. We do not have to all agree about rules. In fact, nobody will ever agree 100% regarding rules. 20 racers in a room means 20 different opinions and 20 different rule sets if we asked each to write one. For those that choose to be disrespectful with personal insulting attacks on other forums, please feel free to leave NASA, race with another group, find things you don't like in their rules, and make personal attacks on their administrators, then rinse, wash, and repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Thanks for the quick and well thought out reply - I do appreciate it. NASA has not been perfect, but I do like that when you contact someone at NASA the response is typically very quick. Another club I have run with in the past could learn a lot from this.

 

As a racer it would be great if there was a way to have the two groups run together and I feel the same way about SCCA's STO and GT2 class. They have 911 GT3 Cup cars racing in GT2 now, so why not keep going down that road.

 

I don't see club racing participation numbers growing to where they were before the recession, so we need to get back to having bigger class car counts somehow.

The answer is how to keep it fair? If we get complaints about simple stuff like not putting channels in your frame rails, then we know what will happen when a tube frame car starts to dominate what was meant to be a Touring series. How about the "rules creep" if we had to constantly be making competition adjustments because of STR type cars? We had the Mazda 7's Only cars in ST for many years. They are tube-frame, and ran under some pretty confined rules restrictions. Every year they asked for more concessions. It became difficult to even tech the cars because we were now having to see if they had the right part numbers on shocks, etc. It became obvious to us that we needed them to just go do whatever they wanted in STR, instead of for them to keep asking for different allowances of new mods. None of us want "rules creep", and frankly, I don't think that any of us want to be chasing down competition adjustments in the ST/STR Series.

 

Also, if you look at the ST Rules, we have treated 911 GT3 Cup cars as pseudo GT2 cars from the start with the -0.4 Mod Factor (despite the complaints from some P-guys )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be some really good stockcar/trucks out west somewhere, because all the ones I've ever been on track with have been pigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
There must be some really good stockcar/trucks out west somewhere, because all the ones I've ever been on track with have been pigs.

Yep, we have them. In fact, on some tracks, to equalize the fastest ST2 car with the fastest stock car would take greater than a -2 Mod Factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see club racing participation numbers growing to where they were before the recession, so we need to get back to having bigger class car counts somehow.

This is the main issue IMO. I agree with everything Greg posted above as it all makes complete sense. However, I think the most current issue is how to take existing racers/cars and maintain car counts. If you don't fix that first you won't have anyone running to worry about a tube frame car whooping up in ST.

 

Personally I don't want to race a GTS2 BMW or a Miata and those seem to be the biggest classes around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg - I'm sure at this point I'm one of the disrespectful people you referred to, however I tried emailing you and ask questions: my last two emails went unanswered and I don't believe they were rude in any way.

 

I am disappointed that you would tell folks like me to go race somewhere else instead of trying to find a compromise. Like many on these boards I've been a loyal NASA supporter - paying fees to race for both me and my wife, and now I read your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daja Vu. If you guys go into building a race car with the "rule of thumb" mindset that "if it isn't explicitly stated in the rules to NOT do, then do it if it'll make you faster," YOU run the risk of it getting called out on and explicitly denied in the rule set. And then they cry when it does....I'm glad most of the guys that regular on here have common sense after reading that.

 

If it's mostly Vette's and the mods are all the same, maybe National can allow them to cover/weld everything back up and get it reapproved by Greg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to Nasa ST1 in 2010 with an ex SCCA World Challenge GT C5 Corvette. 2in splitter, wing below roof line & in front of body, 450rwhp 6.5lbs/hp. The side exhaust was mandated for safety "must have exhaust exit before fuel tanks". I didn't complain about them that is how they are clearly spelled out. I couldn't afford to compete at that level. There are a lot of corvettes built this way. If the tube chassis cars do show up the new interpretations & additions to the rules would leave world challenge cars without a class they could be competitive in. I raced with less aero & 70 hp low of class limits my first year. I thought my car was legal & so did my tech center after reading the ST1 rules. I just spent whats left of my life savings to build a Nasa ST1 competittive engine. The combination of changing tire contingency & moving to a class with less or no cars will severly hurt the budget & be less fun.

I have raced Midwest council,IMCA,NCCC,SVRA,SCCA,SCCA Pro I have never had an issue with the rules like this. I understand a line must be drawn somehere. I don't see how we went from Unlimited aero & must retain oem frame rails to the current stock unmodified rocker, unmodified inner fender. It definatley looked to me like the original interpretation of ST rules was to keep tube chassis race cars out of a production car class. Allowing the movement of the contol arms on the frame would leave 1 to believe a hole for brake cooling should be allowed. If Nasa wanted St to be stock unmodified frame & body the previous rules did a poor job of explaining it. Severly frustrated John Boos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE BIG PROBLEM IS POSTING NEW RULES 30 DAYS BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS. It is inconsiderate and unfair to change rules this close to the beginning of the season. Every NASA customer/ member should be made aware of proposed CHANGES to the rules before adopted and the rule should not be enforceable in the current season.

 

Greg, please address why this is being sprung on us at this late date.

 

Case in point: I just completed installation of air jacks on my car which required notching the bottom of my rocker panel to allow the jack to pass. I also had to cut a hole in my inner fender (approx 2 1/2" dia) to pass the remote reservoir of my shock through. To replace these items will cost thousands of dollars. Whatever the answer is there is no acceptable reason for implementing this immediately. It is not enforcing an existing rule, it is creating new rules without properly informing the members.

 

I do not mean for this post to be disrespectful in any way, I am just having difficulty understanding how a new rule is implemented without giving adequate time for affected parties to make the appropriate modifications to adhere to the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE BIG PROBLEM IS POSTING NEW RULES 30 DAYS BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS. It is inconsiderate and unfair to change rules this close to the beginning of the season. Every NASA customer/ member should be made aware of proposed CHANGES to the rules before adopted and the rule should not be enforceable in the current season.

 

Greg, please address why this is being sprung on us at this late date.

 

Case in point: I just completed installation of air jacks on my car which required notching the bottom of my rocker panel to allow the jack to pass. I also had to cut a hole in my inner fender (approx 2 1/2" dia) to pass the remote reservoir of my shock through. To replace these items will cost thousands of dollars. Whatever the answer is there is no acceptable reason for implementing this immediately. It is not enforcing an existing rule, it is creating new rules without properly informing the members.

 

I do not mean for this post to be disrespectful in any way, I am just having difficulty understanding how a new rule is implemented without giving adequate time for affected parties to make the appropriate modifications to adhere to the rules.

 

Some regions have already started their 2012 season.

 

I would think you should be able to get a waiver for your air jacks under 1B of the new rule. I seriously doubt anyone would consider that a performance advantage.

 

1.

b) Frame rails may have maximum diameter 1.25 (1-1/4) inch holes drilled solely for

the purpose of the placement of jacking lugs/plates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Greg - I'm sure at this point I'm one of the disrespectful people you referred to, however I tried emailing you and ask questions: my last two emails went unanswered and I don't believe they were rude in any way.

 

I am disappointed that you would tell folks like me to go race somewhere else instead of trying to find a compromise. Like many on these boards I've been a loyal NASA supporter - paying fees to race for both me and my wife, and now I read your post.

And here I thought I was being polite. And, I stand by my statement that if you or anyone else thinks that the volunteers that run the NASA competition classes are there to be cannon fodder for personal insults and attacks, then NASA would rather have you go somewhere else and attack their Admin's instead. Alex, I got three e-mails from you this month, and all have been answered as far as I know. I have three e-mails sent to you, all after yours, and mine was the last sent. If there was something that was missed, please re-send. And, before these rules came out, I sent you this on Feb 16th: "Moving the firewall has some pretty huge potential for changing the performance of a vehicle. It is still legal, but I know there have been grumblings about it higher up than me. I am just saying that if you do move it, that you should avoid encroaching into the floor or tunnel." The rules never allowed encroachment of either the floor or tunnel, which is why in the past we had to write a rule allowing the trans tunnel to be modified for placement of a racing seat when necessary. I explained above in this thread the 10" relocation wording of firewall movements, which should satisfactorily answer your wisecrack on the Corvette Forums. But after re-reading one of your posts on the Corvette Forums (about your BMW), I was a bit incredulous, because your statements highlight the reason that we were forced into making this rules revision to clarify things better.

 

Well, it's a 1991 model that ran 195/14 tires all around - inner wells are modified to run a 10 inch wide tire. My front and rear subframes are slightly modified - nothing crazy, but they are 20 year old technology - this might be something Greg would make an exception on, although after these rule changes I'm guessing he's trying to draw a line in the sand.

 

I just bought an LS motor to swap in and was going to have it moved about 4 inches back - otherwise 80% of it sits forward of the front subframe. We actually figured out a way to do it without touching the floor pan - just firewall and transmission tunnel - clearly that's out the window as well.

 

You are on there acting like these new rules are the problem, but your statement above shows that your car was never going to be legal for ST (or PT). We have had discussions on these forums in at least two threads that I can think of in the past regarding tubbing of fender wells, and perhaps you missed them, but it has never been considered legal in ST (or PT). I'm guessing that in order to modify that rear inner fender well that you may have encroached on the floor pan sitting on the opposite side of the inner well metal? Then, you state that you have modified subframes. And, lastly, I didn't need these revisions to tell you two weeks ago that you cannot encroach the trans. tunnel and floor pan.

 

Now, is this the same car that you have been running in PT? You have modified subframes that are stated as not permitted in the PT Rules. You have tubbed fender wells that are not permitted in PT, and clearly fall under the rule there that unless an item is specified in the rules, it is not legal. Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
I came to Nasa ST1 in 2010 with an ex SCCA World Challenge GT C5 Corvette. 2in splitter, wing below roof line & in front of body, 450rwhp 6.5lbs/hp. The side exhaust was mandated for safety "must have exhaust exit before fuel tanks". I didn't complain about them that is how they are clearly spelled out. I couldn't afford to compete at that level. There are a lot of corvettes built this way. If the tube chassis cars do show up the new interpretations & additions to the rules would leave world challenge cars without a class they could be competitive in. I raced with less aero & 70 hp low of class limits my first year. I thought my car was legal & so did my tech center after reading the ST1 rules. I just spent whats left of my life savings to build a Nasa ST1 competittive engine. The combination of changing tire contingency & moving to a class with less or no cars will severly hurt the budget & be less fun.

I have raced Midwest council,IMCA,NCCC,SVRA,SCCA,SCCA Pro I have never had an issue with the rules like this. I understand a line must be drawn somehere. I don't see how we went from Unlimited aero & must retain oem frame rails to the current stock unmodified rocker, unmodified inner fender. It definatley looked to me like the original interpretation of ST rules was to keep tube chassis race cars out of a production car class. Allowing the movement of the contol arms on the frame would leave 1 to believe a hole for brake cooling should be allowed. If Nasa wanted St to be stock unmodified frame & body the previous rules did a poor job of explaining it. Severly frustrated John Boos

John, sorry that these changes have effected your car. Can you please send me a copy of the WCGT rule page that mandated your exhaust modifications? I looked at the more recent rules a while ago and could not find it. Also, I'm assuming that your exhaust either goes through the frame rail, or floor pan or both to get to the rocker panel, is that correct? There was some talk about a grandfather clause at one point, but it was shot down because the drivers who didn't get to do the same thing would just complain. But, if you can get me the actual documentation, I think that we might be able to open the subject again.

 

As far as the inner fender well addition, it was essentially there already for most cars by the combination of the requirement to retain the OEM strut tower and floor pan. As well, while not everyone comes on the forums, we have discussed this issue, and it was clearly stated that it was not permitted to tub the fender wells to make more room inboard for larger wheels and tires. The unmodified rocker was another item added by the NASA Executives, along with the roof line Mod Factor. I agree that some of these things were never my intention when I developed the ST Series, came up with the formula, and wrote the Rules. However, we didn't have the STR series then either. I think that the NASA Exec's cannot believe how many of the ST cars were purposely built (unlike yours) ignoring the basic rules, and now they are drawing a line that they believe will be better for the series over the long run. Yes, I've heard that we need it to survive the short run first, but it was not my decision. However, I can see their side as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
THE BIG PROBLEM IS POSTING NEW RULES 30 DAYS BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS. It is inconsiderate and unfair to change rules this close to the beginning of the season. Every NASA customer/ member should be made aware of proposed CHANGES to the rules before adopted and the rule should not be enforceable in the current season.

 

Greg, please address why this is being sprung on us at this late date.

 

Case in point: I just completed installation of air jacks on my car which required notching the bottom of my rocker panel to allow the jack to pass. I also had to cut a hole in my inner fender (approx 2 1/2" dia) to pass the remote reservoir of my shock through. To replace these items will cost thousands of dollars. Whatever the answer is there is no acceptable reason for implementing this immediately. It is not enforcing an existing rule, it is creating new rules without properly informing the members.

 

I do not mean for this post to be disrespectful in any way, I am just having difficulty understanding how a new rule is implemented without giving adequate time for affected parties to make the appropriate modifications to adhere to the rules.

 

Pete, the extent of non-compliance with the "simple" rules was not known until we started getting questions about these mods over the past 2 months (after the 2012 rules came out), and then started questioning drivers. Whether you call it a misunderstanding, a mistake, poorly worded rules, it doesn't really matter. This revision was basically forced by some competitors. We had no intention of rewriting rules two months after the release of the 2012 Rules. It was either a matter of writing this revision, or just DQ'ing many cars after they showed up and raced. At least this is now bringing to light those that have issues, instead of finding them at the National Championships.

 

As far as your specific modifications are concerned, I suggest that you send me an e-mail with photos before spending any money. I'm guessing that both of those can be handled directly in a satisfactory manner. Neither of them seem to be the performance enhancing modifications that these rules were written for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now see Greg, you are posting a response without having all the facts. I only got 2 emails from you. Second email was after 2 attempts to contact you and never addressed the questions in the email.

 

1. My inner wells are not tubbed. It's not the width of the tire, it's the overall diameter that forced any modification to the front edge of my front wells. They were then sealed back up, so no venting takes place. I imagine that is substantially different from the intent of the new rule as you have explained in this thread, i.e. moving the wells inward.

 

2. My subframe itself is completely stock. The only thing that was modified was the mounting ends, to make sure it mounts in the STOCK position. I'm not sure whether this violates the letter or intent of the rules, I was simply being upfront about it since they are modified.

 

3. Firewall - I'm sorry, but that wording is a joke. Just remove the 10 inch wording altogether. And I stand by my wise crack, since I'm not sure what car can have an engine moved 10 inches without modifying floor pan, firewall, or transmission tunnel.

 

Frankly, I wish instead of taking all this time to post a page long response you would've taken a few more minutes to reach out to me and help correctly build my car. People like me are your best customers - I'm in my 4th year of racing with NASA, trying to build a car to run in one of your classes after racing in another class. Instead you get mad because of my or anybody else's posts and tell us to go spend our money elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still love you Greg...

 

All kidding aside the series directors in each series have an impossible job controlling tons of us and making everyone happy. I see the point in the rule changes in what they are trying to accomplish and Greg certainly didn't sound door slammed on a few of the gray area mods that aren't performance enhancing.

 

The best thing about NASA is can't you still run a few other classes even if rule changes bump you out of current class. Good luck on that in SCCA.

 

I have no dog in this fight as don't race vette's anymore so just some advice of deal issues off-line w Greg and others and be open minded and not attacking and you will usual be happy with the outcome..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we would have either gotten complaints from the GT2 type cars that they had too big a Mod Factor if it was -1.7, or we would have had complaints from everyone that the stock cars are killing their Production Touring series. So, we have kept them apart. As both series develop, there is always the chance that when we have our own data based on cars prepped for both series, that we may be able to combine them again somehow, but I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

 

I realize that my perspective is coming through lenses blurred by my car (a Panoz) being pulled out of ST2, but if the argument is that tube frame 'stock cars' are killing the 'production' class, then why are some of the tube frame cars allowed to remain? Because they are not competitive? What happens when someone shows up with a now legal yet fully developed tube frame car (FFR, Stalker) and wins - does it get punted out of the class too?

 

I'll run STR2, in a small class until it stops being fun or gap up to ST1 and get my shorts handed to me until that stops being fun. Most people are here for the competition, not for the trophy. Continued class dilution is not going to be a key component of NASA's continued success. Breaking into more classes and 'waiting on the series to develop' is not a good strategy. I'm not saying that everything is about the contingency programs, but it may have been better received when Hoosier was paying tires with only three cars in class. Look at what is going on at Road Atlanta - the 'ST2 group' is trying to find enough folks to fill out the Hoosier contingency requirement. When a PTA car/driver is leading the charge to gap up 1 or 2 classes to build a field big enough to qualify for contingencies - you have a dilution problem.

 

Tal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

 

Last year we had good competition in ST2. I run a stock C5 T1 car and was able to win here and there regionally. There were a few other cars prepped like mine, and we had a good time.

 

My car does not come close to be able to compete with a full out ST2 build -1:35 at Road Atlanta compared to 1:28. Now, a few people are excluded because they have brake cooling in the frame or exhaust going through the frame, the least of my worries. I know the full out guys spent 100k+ compared to my 25+ and the now illegal mods had no influence in the huge lap time discrepancy.

 

These new rules alienate some good competitors for no reason, for example the Panoz is no longer allowed. Panoz was not competitive anyway, but found some guys to race with and the drivers had fun. Now they are kicked out.

 

None of the competitors cared, only the people making the rules. The result will now be lower car counts and people selling their cars. That coupled with the changes in the hoosier contingency could be a big blow to the ST racing with Nasa.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Some regions have already started their 2012 season.

Our 3rd points event is going on right now as I type this!

And.... those cars are here with me at Auto Club Speedway, and we haven't had a problem with any of them yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Now see Greg, you are posting a response without having all the facts. I only got 2 emails from you. Second email was after 2 attempts to contact you and never addressed the questions in the email.

 

1. My inner wells are not tubbed. It's not the width of the tire, it's the overall diameter that forced any modification to the front edge of my front wells. They were then sealed back up, so no venting takes place. I imagine that is substantially different from the intent of the new rule as you have explained in this thread, i.e. moving the wells inward.

 

2. My subframe itself is completely stock. The only thing that was modified was the mounting ends, to make sure it mounts in the STOCK position. I'm not sure whether this violates the letter or intent of the rules, I was simply being upfront about it since they are modified.

 

3. Firewall - I'm sorry, but that wording is a joke. Just remove the 10 inch wording altogether. And I stand by my wise crack, since I'm not sure what car can have an engine moved 10 inches without modifying floor pan, firewall, or transmission tunnel.

 

Frankly, I wish instead of taking all this time to post a page long response you would've taken a few more minutes to reach out to me and help correctly build my car. People like me are your best customers - I'm in my 4th year of racing with NASA, trying to build a car to run in one of your classes after racing in another class. Instead you get mad because of my or anybody else's posts and tell us to go spend our money elsewhere.

Alex, the quote of yours said that you modified the inner fender wells to allow for wider 10" tires, not taller tires. Again, here is the quote, "inner wells are modified to run a 10 inch wide tire. My front and rear subframes are slightly modified..." If you modified any metal part of the fender well in PT, it was not legal. If you have a "completely stock" subframe, then you should be able to have stock, not modified, mounting ends to makes sure the subframe is in the stock position in PT. And, you have freely admitted that you are one of the disrespectful folks on the other forum. You are again being disingenuous by stating that I should have taken a few more minutes to help correctly build your car. Well, you made all of these mods and apparently ran with them last year in PT, not this month when I explained to you in multiple a multiple e-mail discussion regarding your potential engine swap and firewall issues. So, it seems to me that your car is possibly not legal for PT based on rules that were written many years ago. But, I guess we will find out if we inspect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...