Car Classing Guide + Help Thread

[DarthFIAT]

15 hours ago, Magner said:

It is each competitors responsibility to ensure their cars meets the minimum safety requirement prior to running an event.

All Fiat 500's (exception Abarth models) are explicitly bared from competition for stability concerns. If a competitor wishes to use such a vehicle for competition they must be able to demonstrate to officials the vehicle complies with the minimum rules outlined in section 3.1 of the SCCA rule book:

http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/013/596/2016-3-24_Solo_Rules_reduced.pdf?1458855434

The car's track width MUST be wider than the talest point on the car.

A quick review shows a FIAT 500 Track width as 55.4" front and 55" rear with a height of 59.8". This would require significant modification to meet the MINIMUM requirements.

The download you provided there also mentions the SSF for calculating the probability of rollover occurring.  I have to think this is what the SCCA used when allowing the Abarth as it doesn't meet the 1 to 1 ratio in stock form either.  It's virtually identical with the Turbo in physical characteristics and is in fact 7lbs lighter (it's 1.2" taller then the Abarth).  So my question is if I can prove that it has been lowered the 1.2" will this suffice?  Do I need to crunch the numbers to prove that it is over the SSF minimum of 1.3? Here is a link to the Physical specs for the Turbo and Abarth http://www.fiat500usa.com/2014/08/2015-fiat-500-500c-and-500-turbo-specs.html

[Curtis]

I just bought a 2013 Scion FR-S. I've installed a drop in air filter (intake is unmodified), Koni yellows, TRD springs, TRD front and rear swaybars, and the TRD catback exhaust. I'll be using 17x7 +42 Enkei RPF1s and 235 RE71Rs. Just want to confirm that puts me in C-street.

[Nhil]

6 hours ago, DarthFIAT said:

The download you provided there also mentions the SSF for calculating the probability of rollover occurring.  I have to think this is what the SCCA used when allowing the Abarth as it doesn't meet the 1 to 1 ratio in stock form either.  It's virtually identical with the Turbo in physical characteristics and is in fact 7lbs lighter (it's 1.2" taller then the Abarth).  So my question is if I can prove that it has been lowered the 1.2" will this suffice?  Do I need to crunch the numbers to prove that it is over the SSF minimum of 1.3? Here is a link to the Physical specs for the Turbo and Abarth http://www.fiat500usa.com/2014/08/2015-fiat-500-500c-and-500-turbo-specs.html

The chart provided in section 3.1 of the rule book link shows that it will fall into the unacceptable range with only 1.2" of lowering. You would need additional track width to meet the minimum requirements. 

[Magner]

1 hour ago, Curtis said:

I just bought a 2013 Scion FR-S. I've installed a drop in air filter (intake is unmodified), Koni yellows, TRD springs, TRD front and rear swaybars, and the TRD catback exhaust. I'll be using 17x7 +42 Enkei RPF1s and 235 RE71Rs. Just want to confirm that puts me in C-street.

Yes you can run in C-Street for 2016 & 2017 BUT for 2017 the non TRD springs & swaybar equipped FRS along with BRZ will get a PAX discount in D-Street, Page 7 April 2016 Fastrack: http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/013/468/16-fastrack-April-solo.pdf?1458320535

Also make note of this notice from the Feb 2016 Solo Fastrack regarding the Koni's for the FRS/BRZ: http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/012/080/16-fastrack-February.pdf?1453302259

Quote

#18376 Koni struts for twins

It has come to the SAC’s attention that there is a difference between the Koni strut housing and the OE strut housing

for the Subaru BRZ and Scion FRS.

Specifically, the OE strut housing ear’s upper mounting holes are of differing diameters forward and aft, while the Koni

strut housing ear’s upper mounting holes are both the same (larger) diameter.

There is no allowance for this. To be compliant with Street allowances, the Koni strut housing must be modified to

match the OE strut housing hole diameter and location. One method by which this can be achieved is by using a

stepped washer of the appropriate size to match the OE diameter and center the hole.

Koni N/A is aware of the issue and members are encouraged to contact them if necessary.

FYI I heard Koni is sending the hardware at no charge.

[DarthFIAT]

56 minutes ago, Nhil said:

The chart provided in section 3.1 of the rule book link shows that it will fall into the unacceptable range with only 1.2" of lowering. You would need additional track width to meet the minimum requirements. 

Rule 3.1 indicates 2 methods of calculating the acceptable rollover chance.  The chart is 1 of them; and the easiest way but not the only way.  This is where I need an official to weigh in and if they are willing to consider the second method.

[Curtis]

1 hour ago, Magner said:

Yes you can run in C-Street for 2016 & 2017 BUT for 2017 the non TRD springs & swaybar equipped FRS along with BRZ will get a PAX discount in D-Street, Page 7 April 2016 Fastrack: http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/013/468/16-fastrack-April-solo.pdf?1458320535

Also make note of this notice from the Feb 2016 Solo Fastrack regarding the Koni's for the FRS/BRZ: http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/012/080/16-fastrack-February.pdf?1453302259

FYI I heard Koni is sending the hardware at no charge.

Yup. Got my be-legal step washers installed too.

It will be nice to be able to choose my pax next year. 

[Nhil]

47 minutes ago, DarthFIAT said:

Rule 3.1 indicates 2 methods of calculating the acceptable rollover chance.  The chart is 1 of them; and the easiest way but not the only way.  This is where I need an official to weigh in and if they are willing to consider the second method.

If it meets the allowable SSF of 1.30 I don't see why not. I would assume that line is a reflection of the 1.30 SSF number though. Not sure where you would get the CG height either, is that a published figure?

[DarthFIAT]

11 hours ago, Nhil said:

If it meets the allowable SSF of 1.30 I don't see why not. I would assume that line is a reflection of the 1.30 SSF number though. Not sure where you would get the CG height either, is that a published figure?

Needs to be calculated as I have a dropped the CGH from Stock so would make any published figure moot anyways.  It's not that hard just need a weigh scale and plug in some figures.  Ideally though if I can just prove that the Car is as low or lower then an Abarth common sense would be that the CGH is lower and thus acceptable.

[dano]

2 hours ago, DarthFIAT said:

Needs to be calculated as I have a dropped the CGH from Stock so would make any published figure moot anyways.  It's not that hard just need a weigh scale and plug in some figures.  Ideally though if I can just prove that the Car is as low or lower then an Abarth common sense would be that the CGH is lower and thus acceptable.

While I'm not the most knowledgeable, its not just a factor of being lower, but that in combination of being wider. So changing the width / offset of the wheels would also impact the factor.

[DarthFIAT]

27 minutes ago, dano said:

While I'm not the most knowledgeable, its not just a factor of being lower, but that in combination of being wider. So changing the width / offset of the wheels would also impact the factor.

It is indeed also a factor in calculating the SSF (Static Stability Force).  Which is 1/2 Track width / Center of Gravity Height.  That number needs to exceed 1.3. 

[Magner]

On 2016-04-06 at 8:10 AM, DarthFIAT said:

Needs to be calculated as I have a dropped the CGH from Stock so would make any published figure moot anyways.  It's not that hard just need a weigh scale and plug in some figures.  Ideally though if I can just prove that the Car is as low or lower then an Abarth common sense would be that the CGH is lower and thus acceptable.

Because all Non-Abarth Fiat 500s are explicitly excluded from competition for stability concerns, you must be able to show your car is wider than it is tall. You dont need to measure anything.

The car's track width must be wider than the talest point on the car. If the car is not wider than it is tall you will not be able to participate. 

[DarthFIAT]

1 hour ago, Magner said:

Because all Non-Abarth Fiat 500s are explicitly excluded from competition for stability concerns, you must be able to show your car is wider than it is tall. You dont need to measure anything.

The car's track width must be wider than the talest point on the car. If the car is not wider than it is tall you will not be able to participate. 

The Abarth is not Wider then it is Tall.  Why is it not excluded?

[cboettch]

Hi, a Few other discussions for thought (there have been many).

http://www.fiattech.com/kunena/fiat-500-general-discussions/3830-not-scca-sanctioned

And locally Go to page 2 here for a good discussion. 

http://toptierimports.com/index.php?topic=9766.0;nowap

The car is not eligible in stock. It is, with the right mods (lower/ wider) eligible for STX (Page 176)

http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/013/220/2016_Solo_Rules_DRAFT_d_2-23-2016_reduced.pdf?1456437325

So not all is lost. Just can't run it as it is. 

 

[DarthFIAT]

33 minutes ago, cboettch said:

Hi, a Few other discussions for thought (there have been many).

http://www.fiattech.com/kunena/fiat-500-general-discussions/3830-not-scca-sanctioned

And locally Go to page 6 here for a good discussion. 

http://toptierimports.com/index.php?topic=9766.0;nowap

The car is not eligible in stock. It is, with the right mods (lower/ wider) eligible for STX. So not all is lost. Just can't run it as it is. 

 

We must have different post setting for the forum.  Found the posts in question on page 2 of top tier.  Both links are exactly my point.  I've picked up some Abarth suspension take offs for a song.  Those installed drop me 1.2" to be exact as a stock Abarth.  Have some eighbachs on the way that if drop as advertised will be a further 1.8.  Still shy about an inch from the height to width ratio but still lower then a stock Abarth.  I've got the question in with SEB hoping for some clarification on the rule as it pertains to the Turbo.

[Shawn]

11 hours ago, DarthFIAT said:

We must have different post setting for the forum.  Found the posts in question on page 2 of top tier.  Both links are exactly my point.  I've picked up some Abarth suspension take offs for a song.  Those installed drop me 1.2" to be exact as a stock Abarth.  Have some eighbachs on the way that if drop as advertised will be a further 1.8.  Still shy about an inch from the height to width ratio but still lower then a stock Abarth.  I've got the question in with SEB hoping for some clarification on the rule as it pertains to the Turbo.

3" drop? Wow, and I thought my car had a high stock suspension.

[Beau]

I found this online the other day. Looks pretty helpful.

Car Classification Worksheet.pdf

[SixerFixer]

I filled out that Car Classification sheet at the start of the season and found it very useful in classing my car.

 

Modification wise, all the car has done to it are a very mild cam (272º vs the stock 264º... good for ~5-6 hp bump), full exhaust, springs, and a strut brace, and I have switched to a set of european front and rear bumpers. I wish this didn't mean I would have to compete in the SM class, but I guess the rules are the rules. This means I can justify a lot of parts purchases now. 

[Shawn]

2 hours ago, SixerFixer said:

I filled out that Car Classification sheet at the start of the season and found it very useful in classing my car.

 

Modification wise, all the car has done to it are a very mild cam (272º vs the stock 264º... good for ~5-6 hp bump), full exhaust, springs, and a strut brace, and I have switched to a set of european front and rear bumpers. I wish this didn't mean I would have to compete in the SM class, but I guess the rules are the rules. This means I can justify a lot of parts purchases now. 

I can sympathize with you. I have never prepped my car to the extent of the rules, and in fact right now I am running a completely bone stock car in ASP. Soon though I will replace the stock brake lines with SS lines so then I will not be stock/street class legal.

[Jim Eh.]

C'mon "Chris", those dingo balls , fuzzy dice and the hound dog on the rear shelf boot you out of stock anyway.

[SixerFixer]

"Ballast" 

[zclapa]

I was thinking of getting a trim skirt for my WRX and I was hoping to still run in D Street. Would WSCC members and autocrossers be okay with me running in D Street still, since it is basically just an aesthetic change.

Thanks,

Zac 

[________]

2016 Regulations, Classing Guide:

http://www.scca.com/pages/solo-cars-and-rules

[Nhil]

9 hours ago, zclapa said:

I was thinking of getting a trim skirt for my WRX and I was hoping to still run in D Street. Would WSCC members and autocrossers be okay with me running in D Street still, since it is basically just an aesthetic change.

Thanks,

Zac 

Hey Zac,

Do you have a picture of the item in question?

Generally speaking we are okay with minor lips, skirts and spoilers. Items that would be considered aesthetic only. If you're thinking of a large front splitter or large wing that will generate actual downforce, then you would be classed appropriately.

[zclapa]

11 hours ago, Nhil said:

Hey Zac,

Do you have a picture of the item in question?

Generally speaking we are okay with minor lips, skirts and spoilers. Items that would be considered aesthetic only. If you're thinking of a large front splitter or large wing that will generate actual downforce, then you would be classed appropriately.

This is what I was looking at.

[TRDTurko]

hmm personally I would be on the fence about that kit... looks like it acutally might provide a bit of downforce. if I recall there is even a specific rules somewhere about splitters not protruding past the front of the bumper.

[zclapa]

Sorry I didn't mention this originally, but I am aware of the rules infringment. Due to the minimalistic nature of the relative increase in down force, I was just wondering if it would be required to take it off for events or if people simply wouldn't mind. As it seems it may be better to take off the front trim, would the same thoughts apply to the side trim pieces as well?

Thanks,

Zac 

[Corey]

It's a witch! Burn it! 

Actually, I'm fine with that for Street class. Note that front lips can take a beating on cones. 

[Nhil]

I don't see that piece creating any meaningful downforce so I would say it's alright. As Corey mentioned above, that thing will take a beating with cones.

[Jim Eh.]

It's OK, Zac never has a problem with cones and front splitters .... er ... wait aminute 

[Magner]

I have been noticing a few incorrectly classed cars this year. Particularly Street Class, which has gone through a lot of changes in the last few years, 

Here's a few example:

Honda Civics (including 06-16 Si) in Street Class are now classed as HS (H-Street). They used to be classed as G-Street a few years ago. (Acura EL would also be in HS not GS)

BMW M3, (All E36 & E46) in Street Prepared are classed as BSP not ASP. All non M3 3 series (E36&E46) in Street prepared would be in DSP.

Acura Integra (All except Type R) classed in Street are in HS not GS.

C5 Corvettes (97-04 non Z06) in Street are classed as BS not AS. Only the 01-04 Z06 model is classed in AS

In order to qualify for STF the car must be listed on page 179.  STF unlike STS or STX does not have have a "catch all" clause to allow cars not listed in the class.  Example a 2001 Maxima (3.0L v6) would be classed as STS due the STS catch all clause: "Sedans & Coupes NOC (non-sports-car-based; 4-seat minimum; up to 3.1L normally-aspirated)".