Some questions about rules came out at Mosport

[StephanAlfa]

As mentioned to those who had questions about their class or think the modifications you have done to your car does not justify the class you are in, the BEST way to get this addressed is to SUBMIT your reasons for changes or GO to the COM meetings.
These rule changes are discussed at the end of each year and NOW would be a good opportunity to prepare your submissions.

[chaos4NH]

The one comment I heard concerned the use of later model, larger front brakes on Mustang Cobra SVT's. The rules state that it would be legal for ST as long as no adapter plates or mounting modifications (drilling new holes, etc.) are necessary. In other words, the brakes must bolt to the stock mounting holes and brackets.
That should be brought up by the person asking the question at Mosport.

[offcamber09]

The one comment I heard concerned the use of later model, larger front brakes on Mustang Cobra SVT's. The rules state that it would be legal for ST as long as no adapter plates or mounting modifications (drilling new holes, etc.) are necessary. In other words, the brakes must bolt to the stock mounting holes and brackets.
That should be brought up by the person asking the question at Mosport.

The larger 13" brakes will bolt onto the early Mustang spindles, but rear disc brakes were not offered on pre-1994 Mustangs except for the mid '80s SVO and the 1993 Cobra R.

Just in case anyone was asking

[StephanAlfa]

Good point Scott.
One of the issues commented was a Camaro using Vette rotors but HAD to use an adpator and that cause it to change class.

[DanDarcy]

Stephan; I run the 2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R front calipers on my 1997 Ford Mustang Cobra. This is legal according to the ST rules as they just bolt on plus the rotor is the same The fellow with the Z28 had adapted brakes from a Corvette which are not just bolt on. This is not legal according to the ST rules. I also run two piece rotors which is also legal in ST. The winning STGT Mustang Cobra at Mosport was not class legal, but it was not because of his brakes. He did not have a passenger seat and neither did his exhaust have cats as required by the rules. I don't think the Brembo brakes from the 2000 Cobra R stop any quicker than stcok but are much easier to change pads and the pads last a lot longer.

[Mark Swinehart]

The Z28 ran the time trials in SPA.

[DanDarcy]

I know he ran SPA, thats what he was bitch'n about about. He though he should be able to run ST class, but I also think his motor was modified which would put him in SP also.

[chaos4NH]

The winning STGT Mustang Cobra at Mosport was not class legal, but it was not because of his brakes. He did not have a passenger seat and neither did his exhaust have cats as required by the rules.

Shame on you for not protesting. It is a little late to start throwing accusations around on the forum - aye?

[DanDarcy]

Sam; I'm not going for the STGT Championship and I like Scott B. , if he wants to not comply with the rules its on his conscience not mine. His win will not affect the class overall results. I knew he wasn't legal the first day.

[chaos4NH]

Sam; I'm not going for the STGT Championship and I like Scott B. , if he wants to not comply with the rules its on his conscience not mine. His win will not affect the class overall results. I knew he wasn't legal the first day.

But Dan, it is up to the competitors to police the classes. Allowing an illegal car in your class does no one any favors. Right?

[Mark Swinehart]

Any of the people in the his correct class could have protested him too.

"Protests may only be filed by event competitors of the same class, Event Stewards, and Event Chairpersons. Event competitors can protest the classification of a car participating in another class that he or she believes is incorrectly classified and should be competing in their class."

[chrizz28]

I know he ran SPA, thats what he was bitch'n about about. He though he should be able to run ST class, but I also think his motor was modified which would put him in SP also.

Nope... stock motor with an aftermarket exhaust and airbox... not my fault the stock Z/28 puts down 315-320 at the wheels (altho I love it) Both of these modifications are allowed in ST.

I wasnt bitchin so much as stating that I upgraded my brakes for the same reason ... increased pad/part durability yet because Ford was too cheap to use a different part on their top dollar sports car but GM did I was penalized. My calipers have the same piston size as the OEM ones available on the car however they are significantly stronger than the OEM F body units. Twice I seized a F body caliper piston because of the warping of the actual piece... I have not had that issue with the Corvette calipers.

To say that a 00 Cobra R is comparable to a 00 vette would not be a misstatement... look at all the comparisons when the vehicles were introduced. Why would upgrading the brakes on a stock (different body style) 96-98 Cobra to a 00 Cobra R be that different than upgrading a 00 Camaro to 00 Corvette brakes? The brakes on my car were at least available in the same model year on a different vehicle of the same manufacturer (and of the same component manufacturer ... PBR). There is at least a 2 year difference in model years as well as a body style change (yes mustangs have shared the same basic architecture for way too many years but they are different cars) as well as a component manufacturer change in the mustangs' case (PBR to Brembo).

Also to note 99+ Mustangs run a different OEM caliper than a 94-98 car.

Also interesting the rules do not define the term "manufacturer" as vehicle manufacturer or part manufacturer. The rulebook does not define this term and it could be interpreted as either.

I was proposing that at a bare minimum the rules be changed to state that that brake changes should be available during that vehicles run cycle (e.g. SN 95 mustang 94-98 ) otherwise what would stop me from bolting on the brembos from a 2010 Camaro (should they fit without an adapter bracket ... highly unlikely)?
Alternatively (actually preferably) I could also propse that adapter brakets should be allowed as long as OEM available components from like vehicle manufacturer in same year of vehicle manufacture be allowed. I dont know if the subaru's have the same advantage as the rules are currently written but it would seem that they could upgrade a WRX to the STI OEM brembos should they bolt up. This would mean that the way the rules are currently written they make random exemptions based on manufacturer whim. ( I dont know if this is in fact true... I know very little about Subarus)
Interesting sidetrip... a LT1 F body can run LS1 F body brakes, but needs to change the spindle. No brackets are required so this would be legal?? Also in 1999-2002 you could buy a brand new turn key Mecham Z29R with 14" Stoptech brakes/rotors... (Mecham = SLP/Nickey/Yenko/Hendrick/Balwin Motion, etc)

[cuda6666]

Forget about trying to interpret the ST rules. Just go SP and have fun improving your car instead of endlessly debating the splitting of hairs.

[nhsilversti]

you are correct, almost all the lower than sti model subarus can bolt on brembo sti calipers and rotors but, on the front ONLY, the rears need adapters. that bring said, it is a subaru OEM brake that comes on the higher model.

[chrizz28]

Forget about trying to interpret the ST rules. Just go SP and have fun improving your car instead of endlessly debating the splitting of hairs.

I know I shouldn't take it to heart but you have to admit it is just a tad aggravating that in order to stay remotely competitive ( I still have a long way to go behind the wheel) I have to risk my safety or throw huge dollars at my car. Locking a front wheel at speed is not pretty... I have been there.

I was informed the classes were designed to make sure that people weren't throwing gobs of money at their car (to keep it fair). I assure you that my Corvette setup (costing less than $500 complete - all brand new parts) was significantly less than an STi upgrade a WRX owner would do or a set of FRP Brembos.

It would seem counter intuitive that this rule is in place, since in this case it compromises safety because of a concern about overspending. Editing the rule to require OEM same year or generation parts with or without a bracket would take care of the cost component yet leave the safety component all the while making the rule fair regardless of the manufacturer of the vehicle.

you are correct, almost all the lower than sti model subarus can bolt on brembo sti calipers and rotors but, on the front ONLY, the rears need adapters. that bring said, it is a subaru OEM brake that comes on the higher model.

As is my car... OEM Chevrolet brake from a higher model ... the difference in performance between a WRX and an STi is remarkably similar to the difference in performance between a LS1 Camaro and LS1 Corvette.

Like I said, I am not even that concerned about placing or trophies... my driving needs more work, but as Sam said... what is the point of having rules if they are selectively enforced. I am just pointing out that they may also be selectively written to accidentally favor certain vehicle manufacturers...