So how did the meeting go?

[WillM]

Would be nice to find a happy middle-ground to allow common "street" mods to daily drivers (turbo chips, wings, etc) without pushing those cars into SP, where rollbars and such are required.

Will, I agree with all your points, but I hope you aren't proposing allowing boost increase (which most turbo chips have, unless explicitly tuned otherwise) in ST. It would unfair to non-turbo cars, unless the turbos were moved up one class from SS.

That is, if we allow boost mods in ST, an SSA car would land in ST1 instead of ST2.

Raj

No way! I'm not suggesting adjustment of boost levels in the current ST rules. That was part of the "points system" I mentioned.

I agree that boost level changes in ST are not fitting with the class, and that if they were allowed, it would require the car to "move up", but that is not what I'm suggesting above.

That said, I believe the current non-boost ST rule is probably being stretched a bit, and is mostly keeping the honest people honest.

[ctkag]

There seems to me a lot of inconsistencies in the ST rules. Camber plates & eccentric bushings are allowed but adjustible control arms/links aren't. Cars with strut/spring combinations are allowed to convert ot coilovers, yet other cars aren't (the changing mounting point rule). The panhard bar (or I would assume, a torque arm) not being allowed.

Look at the swaybar links as a safety issue. The stock endlinks on most cars are not suitable for the stress encountered in track driving. An end link or mounting point breaking in the middle of a corner is a very disconcerting experience.

[chaos4NH]

There seems to me a lot of inconsistencies in the ST rules. Camber plates & eccentric bushings are allowed but adjustible control arms/links aren't. Cars with strut/spring combinations are allowed to convert ot coilovers, yet other cars aren't (the changing mounting point rule). The panhard bar (or I would assume, a torque arm) not being allowed.

Look at the swaybar links as a safety issue. The stock endlinks on most cars are not suitable for the stress encountered in track driving. An end link or mounting point breaking in the middle of a corner is a very disconcerting experience.

I agree, and question that camber plates should be allowed. That is a major change to the front end geometry. Of course, I have an ulterior motive --there are no adjustable camber set ups, that use the unmodified strut towers, for the Speed 3
Secondly, there have been a number of cases where rear sway bar links on the MS3 have failed due to loosening and stripping of the threads on the mounting bolts. After market sway bar end links would be safer.

[Stynger]

Secondly, there have been a number of cases where rear sway bar links on the MS3 have failed due to loosening and stripping of the threads on the mounting bolts. After market sway bar end links would be safer.

I agree on the safety issue. Many of the new stock "ball type" links break on the street, the track would have more stress.

We are really working with antiquated rules that have been updated over the years. We really need a new system or a clean sheet, rewrite the rules to today's standards and technology.

Redefine the classes.
Maybe a tuner class with appropriate safety measures.
A Turbo class, boost it till it blows.

The rules were revamped last year and are greatly improved. They could still be improved upon, but it's not a job for one person.
It would take a dedicated group over the course of a year to crunch the details.

Maybe our old rules aren't that bad after all.