NOT Another...Yes...another auotx build thread

[Whiskey11]

The Watt's would definitely help. At this point though...it would appear that we (Mustangs) would need seconds out of parts to be competitive. About the only things that could be done to my car (that aren't power) to "max" it for ST-
-watt's link
-aero
-take out some weight
-11" wheels instead of 10"

I'm not a torque arm believer...let's leave it at that.

other than that, there's not a whole lot to do.

This times from Saturday should be telling- there were ASP, BSP, ESP, potentially STX, and maybe some other national champion cars there that I'm missing. Again...stay tuned for updates and "math."

These cars have always needed seconds worth of modifications to make them competitive in STX so moving to a faster class was going to do that. The move to STU, at least in my eyes facilitates additional allowances without a huge variation between the current competition and our cars in terms of tire size. Obviously the Boost Buggies get why they are on 245's but an M3 represents the nearest "drivetrain configuration" match to our own cars and my understanding is that the E36 M3's struggle to fit a 285 under the fenders but it can be done (reading a thread over on m3forum.net where one did exactly that) with 275's being a bit more achievable in ST's rules? Maybe Terry can jump in on that comment, but the point is that at least compared to other two wheel drivers, asking for more wheels/tires isn't as offensive as it would be in STX where it seems the general consensus is that wider wheels/tires "dont fit the class philosophy".

Weight will kill some time, so will the watts link (driver confidence and power delivery, seriously!) although I have no idea what aero you plan on doing since none is legal in ST unless it's OEM and allowed to be used on the highway (the Boss 302 Laguna Seca splitter is NOT legal for ST, it IS legal for ESP). I know you are building to ESP so maybe that is what you meant? I have no idea what the difference in wheel width will make for time but I'm having a hard time imagining that it is outside typical driver noise (a few tenths).

I made the same hypothesis after Spring Nationals about STX and the Mustang being competitive and what I saw as perceived requirements for that. I just don't see it happening without some serious help. The only real reason for the STU move, in my eyes is to support data building by opening these cars up to wider wheels/tires and then either attempting to backwards compare them to STX and pray for a move back to STX and wider tires there, or to support the hypothesis that wider wheels/tires are necessary for these cars in STU which is obvious.

 

[white86hatch]

The Watt's would definitely help. At this point though...it would appear that we (Mustangs) would need seconds out of parts to be competitive. About the only things that could be done to my car (that aren't power) to "max" it for ST-
-watt's link
-aero
-take out some weight
-11" wheels instead of 10"

I'm not a torque arm believer...let's leave it at that.

other than that, there's not a whole lot to do.

This times from Saturday should be telling- there were ASP, BSP, ESP, potentially STX, and maybe some other national champion cars there that I'm missing. Again...stay tuned for updates and "math."

If I read it correctly you were .456 away from the fastest STU car. No offense but that's better than I expected.

 

[csamsh]

If I read it correctly you were .456 away from the fastest STU car. No offense but that's better than I expected.

none taken! I was pretty happy with that. The more telling (at least nationally-speaking) result is Terry in Pro, down in seventh.

 

[Whiskey11]

If I read it correctly you were .456 away from the fastest STU car. No offense but that's better than I expected.

I went and looked at the results after this post, I don't think Mr. Sam Graff is in a prepped car. STU should be faster than STX and Brad Maxcy ran a 50.290 to csamsh's 53.582 for a 3.292 deficit to match STX's times.

To PAX the same as STX he would have had to have ran a 49.161.

I have no idea how good of a driver csamsh is though.

Terry running a 51.228 makes the deficit only .938 seconds to match STX, 2.067 to PAX the same. Not as awful as you'd think.

 

[csamsh]

I have no idea what aero you plan on doing since none is legal in ST unless it's OEM and allowed to be used on the highway (the Boss 302 Laguna Seca splitter is NOT legal for ST, it IS legal for ESP). I know you are building to ESP so maybe that is what you meant? I have no idea what the difference in wheel width will make for time but I'm having a hard time imagining that it is outside typical driver noise (a few tenths).

aero- you're on the wrong end of the car

wheels- putting a 285 on a wider wheel should (?) increase useable tread width?

 

[Whiskey11]

aero- you're on the wrong end of the car

wheels- putting a 285 on a wider wheel should (?) increase useable tread width?

In ST the only aero allowances are factory parts authorized for highway use. But yes, for SP you have the big silly NASCAR spoiler.

You aren't that far off of the tire width with wheel width (1.2") and while I'm sure the 11" wheel would help some, I don't think you are going to see that large of a difference in times over 1" of wheel width. I could very well be wrong but I just don't see more than a few tenths at best and most of that could be driver noise.

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Well, before you guys over-analyze the event class and PAX results, comparing this car's runs by me (running in X class in 1st heat) or Mark (running STU in 4th heat) to other classes/heats, know this:

They changed the course after the 1st heat.

*Note: There was a course change after the first heat. The first heat had the following classes: AM, BM, CM, CS, GS, DM, EP, FP, FSP, GP, STF, X

Unfortunate events conspired to screw up this test. We knew that if both of us ran in the same heat, at the very end of the day (97°F by days end) that the tires would overheat badly. As it was we sprayed tires after EVERY run in the morning (for me) and TWICE after each run for Mark. The rear tires got HOT HOT HOT. Running a 2-driver car in a regional means you are seriously compressed for time and we wouldn't have had tires that were usable after the 2nd runs. So we split up and I ran in X, Mark in STU, still hoping to compare raw times to other classes (and mostly ignoring PAX, which is HORRIBLE for STU and nearly matches ESP).

That course change essentially throws away ALL of the data comparisons that were not run in the same course configuration (1st heat vs 2nd/3rd/4th heats). Which really sucks, and I tried to get them to leave the course alone (they didn't make it much if any safer, as there were almost as many spins in the finish after the "course fix" as before), but it was out of our hands. During the morning course walk-thru I predicted the finish would be too fast, and would create many spins and prompt a course change after the first few runs. I have been right about this too many times to count, but this time it really screwed up our testing.

• Full Class Results: http://texasscca.org/2013_solo_results/tr13_5_final.htm
• PAX Results: http://texasscca.org/2013_solo_results/tr13_5_pax.htm edit

If you look at my best raw time (51.228) I nearly matched 7-time ESP National Champion Mark Madarash's official time (51.19), and out PAX'd him... but again, he ran another course, only made 1 run, and it had a cone (I think something broke - he left the event early after that one run in heat 3). I put 2 seconds on the four cars that ran in STU open, but again, I ran a different course. Nobody knows if the course change was faster or slower, either, just... "different". 1st, 3rd and 5th in overall PAX ran in the 1st heat (and were all in "X"), whereas 2nd, 4th and 6th in PAX ran in later heats on the other course, so who knows.

The only data that is usable is Mark's STU times vs other STU and STX drivers, or my times within X-class. But STX is a lot more competitive than STU in our region, with the two top cars being fully prepped (we've worked on both extensively) and driven by hyper competitive drivers. Brand Maxcy was ON, won the class big and PAX'd strong with that 50.29 time (compared to Mark's 53.58). The X-class has 100% PAX factored results and only the first 3 runs count for times or overall PAX (they DSQ runs 4 and 5, so I took passengers and had fun - nearly matching my 3rd run with a rider on my 5th, though), which is how National level events are run - 3 runs and done. This X class is usually made up of the most competitive racers in or region. I was 7th out of 9 entrants, and my 3rd run was one of my best feeling runs in a LONG time, yet I still got creamed.

Part of that is the actual PAX for STU is terrible, and even STU people will tell you that. I was more looking forward to comparing my times vs STX raw, but the course change screwed that up. So this test was only partially successful and many of the comparisons we wanted to make were boned by the course mistakes made by the designer and Safety stewards. And i said as much when announcing for Heat 2.

All in all Mark's mostly-prepped Mustang was a LOT more fun to drive in STU trim than my '11 GT was in very nearly fully prepped STX trim, but still MUCH more "challenging" to drive than my '11 GT was in ESP. R compounds are just easier to drive fast, always. They take less skill to push a big heavy powerful car with than skinnier 200 TW street tires on virtually the same car. The added 20mm of tire and 1" of wheel width make the car a lot easier to drive than in STX, but it was by no means easy. The throttle pedal takes a very delicate touch, and it is still likely one of the more difficult cars on the paddock to drive quickly. Yes, Mark needs to add a Watts link, real race seats, and a different shifter (I hate that MGW, along with almost all of the short throw aftermarket shifters - we had to upshift to 3rd in part of this course), and it will only get faster. Adding things like headers won't make it faster, but will make it more fun, and a tick lighter. But it is 90% there as it sits.

We will obviously need to gather a LOT more data, under better controlled conditions and on the same course before trying to prove a case to have the STAX/SEB add more tire to the Mustang. Does it need this adder? Of course it does. But it will take a lot of events, a lot of time and a LOT of letters to get this. But overall the Mustang is MORE FUN IN STU than in any other class (FS, ESP, SM, CP, EM). That part I will stand by.

Thanks,

 

[Whiskey11]

Well, before you guys over-analyze the event class and PAX results, comparing this car's runs by me (running in X class in 1st heat) or Mark (running STU in 4th heat) to other classes/heats, know this:

They changed the course after the 1st heat.

Unfortunate events conspired to screw up this test. We knew that if both of us ran in the same heat, at the very end of the day (97°F by days end) that the tires would overheat badly. As it was we sprayed tires after EVERY run in the morning (for me) and TWICE after each run for Mark. The rear tires got HOT HOT HOT. Running a 2-driver car in a regional means you are seriously compressed for time and we wouldn't have had tires that were usable after the 2nd runs. So we split up and I ran in X, Mark in STU, still hoping to compare raw times to other classes (and mostly ignoring PAX, which is HORRIBLE for STU and nearly matches ESP).

That course change essentially throws away ALL of the data comparisons that were not run in the same course configuration (1st heat vs 2nd/3rd/4th heats). Which really sucks, and I tried to get them to leave the course alone (they didn't make it much if any safer, as there were almost as many spins in the finish after the "course fix" as before), but it was out of our hands. During the morning course walk-thru I predicted the finish would be too fast, and would create many spins and prompt a course change after the first few runs. I have been right about this too many times to count, but this time it really screwed up our testing.

• Full Class Results: http://texasscca.org/2013_solo_results/tr13_5_final.htm
• PAX Results: http://texasscca.org/2013_solo_results/tr13_5_pax.htm edit

If you look at my best raw time (51.228) I nearly matched 7-time ESP National Champion Mark Madarash's official time (51.19), and out PAX'd him... but again, he ran another course, only made 1 run, and it had a cone (I think something broke - he left the event early after that one run in heat 3). I put 2 seconds on the four cars that ran in STU open, but again, I ran a different course. Nobody knows if the course change was faster or slower, either, just... "different". 1st, 3rd and 5th in overall PAX ran in the 1st heat (and were all in "X"), whereas 2nd, 4th and 6th in PAX ran in later heats on the other course, so who knows.

The only data that is usable is Mark's STU times vs other STU and STX drivers, or my times within X-class. But STX is a lot more competitive than STU in our region, with the two top cars being fully prepped (we've worked on both extensively) and driven by hyper competitive drivers. Brand Maxcy was ON, won the class big and PAX'd strong with that 50.29 time (compared to Mark's 53.58). The X-class has 100% PAX factored results and only the first 3 runs count for times or overall PAX (they DSQ runs 4 and 5, so I took passengers and had fun - nearly matching my 3rd run with a rider on my 5th, though), which is how National level events are run - 3 runs and done. This X class is usually made up of the most competitive racers in or region. I was 7th out of 9 entrants, and my 3rd run was one of my best feeling runs in a LONG time, yet I still got creamed.

Part of that is the actual PAX for STU is terrible, and even STU people will tell you that. I was more looking forward to comparing my times vs STX raw, but the course change screwed that up. So this test was only partially successful and many of the comparisons we wanted to make were boned by the course mistakes made by the designer and Safety stewards. And i said as much when announcing for Heat 2.

All in all Mark's mostly-prepped Mustang was a LOT more fun to drive in STU trim than my '11 GT was in very nearly fully prepped STX trim, but still MUCH more "challenging" to drive than my '11 GT was in ESP. R compounds are just easier to drive fast, always. They take less skill to push a big heavy powerful car with than skinnier 200 TW street tires on virtually the same car. The added 20mm of tire and 1" of wheel width make the car a lot easier to drive than in STX, but it was by no means easy. The throttle pedal takes a very delicate touch, and it is still likely one of the more difficult cars on the paddock to drive quickly. Yes, Mark needs to add a Watts link, real race seats, and a different shifter (I hate that MGW, along with almost all of the short throw aftermarket shifters - we had to upshift to 3rd in part of this course), and it will only get faster. Adding things like headers won't make it faster, but will make it more fun, and a tick lighter. But it is 90% there as it sits.

We will obviously need to gather a LOT more data, under better controlled conditions and on the same course before trying to prove a case to have the STAX/SEB add more tire to the Mustang. Does it need this adder? Of course it does. But it will take a lot of events, a lot of time and a LOT of letters to get this. But overall the Mustang is MORE FUN IN STU than in any other class (FS, ESP, SM, CP, EM). That part I will stand by.

Thanks,

Terry thanks for the observations and clarifications. I've got a few questions, comments and observations. You know me, analyze, analyze and analyze some more!

The 2011+ cars must be real tire burners with the 5.0L. If you remember from the last Project Tilty update from our Nebraskhana event, you'll know that myself and a co-driver drove in similar conditions (I think it was 95º, slight breeze but high humidity, 75% IIRC) on the Nationals concrete and we hot lapped my car for 7 straight runs, on 265 wide RS3's and it took to the end of run 6 and all of run 7 before they got greasy. The car came in on the final run with the wheel wells literally heating the air to the point of distortion and standing next to either end of the car was nearly painful so I know those tires got hot! I've never personally thought a 2011+ 5.0L would be the car for ST anything and that is why my goals continue to focus around the 2005-2009 cars (the 2010's got a good bit heavier with the body/interior changes). I really wish I had an "alien" to compare times to at Nationals this year.

Anyway it sucks about the course change. I do hope that you and csamsh get the opportunity to run again without too much of a difference in time of day when running and without course changes as data is always good to have on hand. That said, I wouldn't call his car "90%" of ST prep. 75%-80% is probably being generous and I wouldn't put my car any further than that either. The watts link is a huge deal. It's a total game changer in the way these cars behave and I'd put it right behind wheels/tires and coilovers for making these cars faster for autocross use. It also is going to help put power down better too with the more stable (or completely stable) roll center and one that is a touch lower too. Weight reduction is a huge thing too, as are all the mods for driver confidence (seats/harnesses, etc) so I have no doubt that there is plenty of prep left to do and I'm sure csamsh would agree. I look forward to csamsh's results if he stays with STU (and obviously I hope he does! ) as the car gets more prepped to the rules.

It's just a shame that this data is going to be coming in slowly and rule changes will be even slower. We have one more year (by your correct interpretation of the FasTrack) in STX which will give us plenty of time to work through our STX tires and gives me plenty of time to recover from the STX expenditures I'm about to make before Nationals and it also gives us plenty of time to work these cars locally in STU where places will allow it and S-ESP or RTP or whatever the local ESP/Street tire PAX combo is. Hopefully we can all keep our heads in the game and build up this next year and get some good data going into year one of STU!

 

[csamsh]

No love for the MGW!

Harsh.

Whiskey- As to rear aero:

Read. The. Rules.

Not an insult...but there's a big one you're missing.

 

[Whiskey11]

No love for the MGW!

Harsh.

Whiskey- As to rear aero:

Read. The. Rules.

Not an insult...but there's a big one you're missing.

Street Touring Rules pertaining to body work:

14.2 BODYWORK
A. Pedal cover kits and other interior cosmetic accessories may be
added. “Dress-up” items such as chrome dipsticks and non-standard
filler caps are permitted, provided they serve no other purpose.
B. The driver and front passenger seats may be replaced with the following
restrictions. The seating surface must be fully upholstered.
The top of the seat, or an attached headrest, may not be below the
center of the driver’s head. The seat, including mounting hardware,
must weigh at least 25 pounds and must be attached using the OE
body mounting holes/studs. Additional mounting points may be added.
C. Factory rub strips, emblems, mud flaps, bolt-on front valance lips/
spoilers, and fog lights (except those integral to a headlight or turn
signal) may be removed. Rear wings may be removed so long as the
vehicle retains any federally-mandated third brake light.
D. Alternate steering wheels are allowed except that steering wheels
with an integral airbag may not be changed.
E. Fenders may not be cut or flared but the inside lip may be rolled to
gain additional tire clearance. (The outer fender contour may not be
changed.) Plastic and rubber wheel well splash shields may be modified
for tire clearance and to accommodate a rolled inside fender lip.
The modifications may serve no other purpose (e.g., air intake, brake
ducts, etc). No other changes to the stock fenders or wheel wells are
permitted.
F. Addition of spoilers, splitters, rear wings, bumper covers, valances,
side skirts, and non-functional sccops/vents is allowed provided that
either:
1. It is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a
US model of the vehicle. “Model” is defined in Section 12.3.
2. It is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog
for that vehicle for normal highway use. This does not allow for
parts sold through a manufacturer’s performance catalog (e.g.,
Ford Racing, HPD, MazdaSpeed, Mopar Performance, Mugen,
NISMO, SPT, TRD, etc).
Parts must be installed as directed by the manufacturer. Exact replicas
(including weight) from alternate sources are also permitted.
G. Strut bars per Section 12 are permitted with all types of suspension,
subject to the following constraints:
1. a 2-point strut bar may be added, removed, modified, or substituted,
but only with another 2-point strut bar.
2. A triangulated (3-point) strut bar may be removed, modified, or
substituted; substitution may be with either a triangulated or a
2-point strut bar. The connection to the chassis (i.e., firewall, bulkhead,
etc) must be in the standard location.
3. Lower suspension braces must be attached to the lower suspension
pickup point locations on the chassis within 2” (50.8mm) in
any direction of the actual suspension attachment to the chassis.
4. Except for standard parts, no connections to other components
are permitted.
Additional holes may be drilled for mounting bolts. Only bolt-on attachment
is permitted. Interior trim panels may be modified to allow
installation of strut bars. Holes or slots may be no larger than necessary
and may serve no other purpose. This does not permit any
modifications to the frame or unibody beyond the allowed mounting
holes.
H. Longitudinal (fore-aft) subframe connectors (“SFCs”) are permitted
with the following restrictions:
1. They must only connect previously unconnected boxed frame rails
on unibody vehicles.
2. Each SFC must attach at no more than 3 points on the unibody
(e.g., front, rear, and 1 point in between such as a seat mount
brace or rocker box brace).
3. SFCs must be bolted in place and not welded.
4. No cutting of OE subframes or floorpan stampings is permitted.
Drilling is permitted for mounting bolts only.
5. No cross-car/lateral/triangulated connections directly between the
driver’s side and passenger’s side SFCs are permitted. Connections
to OE components such as tunnel braces or closure panels
via bolts are allowed and count as the third point of attachment.
No alteration to the OE components is permitted.
6. SFCs may not be used to attach other components (including but
not limited to torque arm front mounts or driveshaft loops) and
may serve no other purpose.

I have underlined the section pertaining to addition of spoilers/wings/body panels. It lists two requirements of which you have to meet at least one and here you are again with those requirements:

1. It is a production part which is standard or optional equipment of a
US model of the vehicle. “Model” is defined in Section 12.3.

2. It is listed in the vehicle manufacturer’s US accessory catalog
for that vehicle for normal highway use. This does not allow for
parts sold through a manufacturer’s performance catalog (e.g.,
Ford Racing, HPD, MazdaSpeed, Mopar Performance, Mugen,
NISMO, SPT, TRD, etc). Parts must be installed as directed
by the manufacturer. Exact replicas (including weight) from
alternate sources are also permitted.[/U]

Which part am I missing exactly that effects the rear of the car? To my knowledge your options are: Nothing on the rear decklid, The V6 stump rear "spoiler", and the Pedestal spoiler. The Boss 302 Laguna Seca rear wing is not allowed for your car unless you want to convert your car to a Boss 302 Laguna Seca and the NASCAR spoilers on the rear are not legal until SP.

Care to enlighten me which voodoo magic you have that is legal?

 

[csamsh]

Key word: either.

Also- I believe the "all or nothing" model conversion only applies in stock?

 

[boardkat]

ST* inherits the stock ruleset and since there is no mention of anything related to option package conversions in ST*, the stock rule reigns supreme:

"Option package conversions may be performed between specific vehicles
of a particular make and model, but only between configurations
from within a particular model year. Such conversions must be totally
complete and the resultant car must meet all requirements of this Section."

this is why you don't see any non-CR AP2's in STR running the CR wing - it would require a complete conversion to CR-spec. in spite of this, the laguna seca is specifically disallowed for stock in appendix a, meaning it's also not legal in ST*.

 

[Norm Peterson]

wheels- putting a 285 on a wider wheel should (?) increase useable tread width?

Rim width affects cornering stiffness (and by implication reduces slip angle), but actual tread width isn't particularly affected. I guess you could say that the wider rim makes it easier to utilize the grip that's potentially there.


Norm

 

[white86hatch]

Key word: either.

Also- I believe the "all or nothing" model conversion only applies in stock?

For our Texas region I don't think it'll matter much. I have a gt500 spoiler on my car and haven't been given any crap.

 

[csamsh]

For our Texas region I don't think it'll matter much. I have a gt500 spoiler on my car and haven't been given any crap.

I wouldn't expect any crap from regions either. OK SCCA is my local one...the region where a cammed and caged C3 runs C stock, and a big-bock FF Cobra replica runs B stock.

So...I can put $10k Penskes on my ST car...but not a Ford grille from a different model. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS OBAMA.

 

[Whiskey11]

I wouldn't expect any crap from regions either. OK SCCA is my local one...the region where a cammed and caged C3 runs C stock, and a big-bock FF Cobra replica runs B stock.

So...I can put $10k Penskes on my ST car...but not a Ford grille from a different model. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS OBAMA.

Not sure what the O-man has to do with this but I fully understand your frustration and share it with you on more than one occasion... I wouldn't mind UD/BD on suspension components, I'd jump on a set of GT500 LCA's in a heart beat... better than stock 09 ones are!

 

[white86hatch]

Not sure what the O-man has to do with this but I fully understand your frustration and share it with you on more than one occasion... I wouldn't mind UD/BD on suspension components, I'd jump on a set of GT500 LCA's in a heart beat... better than stock 09 ones are!

Jenna marbles. Thanks Obama. YouTube it. Get with the times man lol.

 

[csamsh]

Jenna marbles. Thanks Obama. YouTube it. Get with the times man lol.

This

 

[dontlifttoshift]

mmmm....Jenna Marbles

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

I can't argue the Watts in STX/STU, as we added ours after making the jump to ESP. Wold it allow the car to put power down better? Because that's what this car sorely lacks. And now with 70% of the aftermarket Watts links illegal until 1/1/2015, I'd simply recommend to most people to add one and "cheat", then wait for the rules to catch up with reality. This 8 month delay in writing a 7 word rules fix, then stalling it so it cannot be applied to 2014, is unacceptable beyond belief. Oh well, they can keep ignoring the aftermarket and pushing the S197 folks away from SCCA Solo year after year.

As for rear tires not overheating on an STX V8 powered S197... cannot say how you could get them to last 7 consecutive runs, even with 100 fewer horsepower? How competitive was it? How conservative were the drivers?

In the video below I was dancing on the limit of rear tire adhesion just about every time I touched the throttle. We even saw wheelspin in 3rd gear briefly, one a couple of runs. I was holding back the easy-to-achieve "driftoro" driving by an extreme amount, and trying not to let the tires spin for more than a second. This took extreme throttle control, even with stock power levels on this 5.0L powered car (380 whp is about avg for a 5.0L car like this).


Click above for "wheelcam" video from Mark's 2012 Mustang in STU, from an SCCA autocross yesterday

We have more videos coming from this "test" event we ran in STU, but my photo/video guru is busy making some printed materials for an upcoming event, so I just threw this quick "wheel cam" video together, from my 5th run. The car has the stock panhard rod, which allows the axle to move laterally by a large amount (visible in this video). Car owner Mark was riding through with me on this my 5th and final run, but I nearly matched my fastest official time in X class (my 3rd). I took passengers on both my 4th and 5th runs, since they didn't count.

Anyway... I feel like it is all too easy to spin/overheat the rear tires on virtually any solid axle RWD car I've ever autocrossed on street tires. But maybe I'm an anomaly and just overdrive everything like an asshat, heh.

edit: apparently this car has 550/250 spring rates. oops!

Thanks,