S197 Mustang in SCCA Solo: STX vs STU vs ESP?
- Thread starter Vorshlag-Fair
- Start date
Whiskey11
SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Posts
- 1,644
- Reaction score
- 2
I finally took the time to write in on the LCA's and relocation brackets issue. Here is my letter (#12063):
Dear STAC/SEB, before I begin the rest of the letter I would like to quote the Street Touring description in the 2013 rule book as I will be referring back to it quite frequently in this letter:
"The Street Touring® category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using affordable sports cars and sedans equipped with common suspension and engine modifications compatible with street use."
Next I want to congratulate the STAC and SEB and hopefully the BOD soon on helping destroy a perception issue with pony cars in ST. While none of us are expecting to win in STU, the removal of the 9" wheel width and 265 wide tires has already made a reasonably profound impact on future ST participation. I'm in conversation with about 4 people in the pony car world who are jumping to STU for a Nationals oriented car and about 4 other "serious locals" who are either staying in ST (from STX) or are stopping in STU on the way up to ESP. You've not only reduced that perception but you've reduced the cost barrier associated with ditching the narrow wheels and buying wider ones going to ESP by allowing us to get those wheels and run in STU! Thank you again for that!
While we have that momentum though, there are two modifications in the live axle world that I personally think would go far in attracting and retaining people who drive live axles cars that are extremely common and inexpensive to add. Those modifications are the rear lower control arms and rear lower control arm relocation brackets for the axle side pickup points. Let me explain why I think these modifications deserve to become allowances in ST and SP:
1.) Commonality: If you go to any Mustang or Camaro forum and ask what your first suspension modification should be, near the top of that list is going to be lower control arms and relocation brackets, ESPECIALLY if you decide to lower your car. There are a number of reasons for that ranging from a cure for wheel hop to better forward bite from lowering which I will cover shortly, but the amount of times I see it recommended is very high. It's high enough on the list of "first mods" that on one of the Mustang forums I am a member of, we get a few threads a week asking if they are "truly" necessary and the discussion almost always involves explaining how they aren't truly necessary right away but are strongly recommended later in the cars life.
These modifications are common enough that classing first timers coming from outside the SCCA becomes a massive headache in explaining why these mods that they have land them in C-PREPARED despite being one of the least expensive and most common modifications to a Mustang or Camaro. Of course we could explain how they could also play in Street Modified with a dozen other STI's, Evo's, narrow BMWs and high HP GT-R monsters however the perception there will definitely keep them from coming back.
2.) Price: I'm using one suspension parts supplier (BMR) for this demonstration because they happen to have both third and fourth generation Camaro and S197 chassis lower control arms and relocation brackets that they sell. The cost for the S197 (05-14 years) Mustang lower control arms ranges from $139.95 for a simple poly bushing, boxed DOM, control arms all the way up to $349.95 for CNC machined 6061 T6 aluminum control arms. The first is by far the most commonly sold one. Their S197 relocation brackets cost $149.95 and are 100% bolt on, no welding required. The no welding required includes sub 10 second quarter mile time S197's weighing in at 3500+ (their GT500 ran 9.XXX on these bolted in on drag slicks).
For the fourth generation F-Body Camaros and Trans Ams the control arms range from $149.95 all the way up to $289.95 and the relocation brackets cost $109.95 for a complete bolt in set of brackets.
As you can see, these are not expensive parts in the grand scheme of things and yet they have such a profound impact on live axle handling that they are common first modifications to cars.
3.) Performance: While it is no doubt that the commonality of lower control arms and relocation brackets has to do with the popularity of the pony cars in drag racing, there are some distinct advantages that come from these modifications in the autocross world. First and foremost, axle hop caused by soft factory bushings which are designed to allow the rear axle to articulate without too much bind (ignoring all Fox Body and SN95 Mustangs of course!
) is cured or mitigated with replacing the lower control arms. The upper control arm on S197 cars and the Torque Arm on the third and fourth gen Camaros are already free to be replaced and is the other axle hop mitigating allowance.
The instant center adjustment provided by the relocation brackets allows lowered live axle cars to regain some forward bite caused from the control arm angle change reducing the amount of anti-squat available to the car. While high amounts of antisquat are not necessarily desirable from a handling perspective, retaining SOME antisquat helps these cars put down more power but more importantly it makes the car more FUN to drive because you don't turn your $1500 set of Hoosier A6's or $1300 set of RS3's into expensive smoke any time you look at your gas pedal. On my own car, the factory %AS number is around 34%. Just from lowering my ride height to the still-too-tall-to-be-an-ST-car ride height in the rear of my car I'm down to somewhere between 5%-8%. Under the current rules, due to floor pan constraints there is no way for me to pull that number up by relocating the axle side of the UCA and there is no legal allowance for changing the bracket that holds the UCA in place to lower the axle side (understandable considering that the 05-14 Mustangs are the only cars I know that have such a bracket separate from the Unibody). The only legal modification in which we can do is to exploit the Camaro's Torque Arm allowance and run a torque arm which gets me up to %28 antisquat but with that comes a weight disadvantage and the potential to introduce rear suspension murdering brake hop.
These modifications impact more than just third and fourth generation Camaros and Trans Ams and the 05-14 Mustangs, it also comes with something that makes racing an older Fox Body Mustang (or any fox body for that fact) and SN95 Mustang much more SIMPLE by reducing the cost of developing a weight jacker setup that sits on the rear lower control arm. For these guys, the rear springs are located on the rear lower control arms which in combination with the awful bindfest masquerading as a rear suspension in the car isn't the most ideal setup but under the current rules these guys are required to develop a weight jacker setup that sits on the lower control arms just to corner balance their cars. This requires some custom fabrication that adds to the cost of what is supposed to be your two least expensive class for modified cars. The aftermarket has dozens of weight jacker control arms that have adjustable built in spring perches that would allow for ride height and corner balancing changes to be made to the car without spending the money to develop a complex weight jacker setup to work on the stock control arms. These weight jacker arms are also far more safe than anything that sits on the stock control arm is.
So here is what I propose for the new allowance to say:
14.8.G.X: The lower arms may be removed, replaced, or modified and the pickup points on the rear axle housing may be relocated using bolted on or welded on brackets attached to the factory control arm mounting positions on the axle.
As you can see, the wording is pulled directly from the upper arms allowance (currently 14.8.G.4) with a part added on that should limit these brackets to the same plane (in front or rear view) as the factory mounting points. I can even see adding a provision that says that you can either relocate the upper control arm axle side or the lower control arm axle side but not both. This is not new as a similar statement is made for strut cars and replacing the lower control arm as being allowed so long as it is the only form of camber adjustment on the car.
I would like to thank you again for helping remove the perception barrier of Pony cars in ST with the move to STU and I hope that the move in combination with the above allowances will help the SCCA keep and retain a crowd that isn't interested in building their car as a dedicated SCCA autocross cars but something a little more "universal" that they can take to the drags on Friday nights and then come out to the autocross event on Sunday.
Dear STAC/SEB, before I begin the rest of the letter I would like to quote the Street Touring description in the 2013 rule book as I will be referring back to it quite frequently in this letter:
"The Street Touring® category of vehicle modifications is meant to fit between the current Stock and Street Prepared categories. This category provides a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using affordable sports cars and sedans equipped with common suspension and engine modifications compatible with street use."
Next I want to congratulate the STAC and SEB and hopefully the BOD soon on helping destroy a perception issue with pony cars in ST. While none of us are expecting to win in STU, the removal of the 9" wheel width and 265 wide tires has already made a reasonably profound impact on future ST participation. I'm in conversation with about 4 people in the pony car world who are jumping to STU for a Nationals oriented car and about 4 other "serious locals" who are either staying in ST (from STX) or are stopping in STU on the way up to ESP. You've not only reduced that perception but you've reduced the cost barrier associated with ditching the narrow wheels and buying wider ones going to ESP by allowing us to get those wheels and run in STU! Thank you again for that!
While we have that momentum though, there are two modifications in the live axle world that I personally think would go far in attracting and retaining people who drive live axles cars that are extremely common and inexpensive to add. Those modifications are the rear lower control arms and rear lower control arm relocation brackets for the axle side pickup points. Let me explain why I think these modifications deserve to become allowances in ST and SP:
1.) Commonality: If you go to any Mustang or Camaro forum and ask what your first suspension modification should be, near the top of that list is going to be lower control arms and relocation brackets, ESPECIALLY if you decide to lower your car. There are a number of reasons for that ranging from a cure for wheel hop to better forward bite from lowering which I will cover shortly, but the amount of times I see it recommended is very high. It's high enough on the list of "first mods" that on one of the Mustang forums I am a member of, we get a few threads a week asking if they are "truly" necessary and the discussion almost always involves explaining how they aren't truly necessary right away but are strongly recommended later in the cars life.
These modifications are common enough that classing first timers coming from outside the SCCA becomes a massive headache in explaining why these mods that they have land them in C-PREPARED despite being one of the least expensive and most common modifications to a Mustang or Camaro. Of course we could explain how they could also play in Street Modified with a dozen other STI's, Evo's, narrow BMWs and high HP GT-R monsters however the perception there will definitely keep them from coming back.
2.) Price: I'm using one suspension parts supplier (BMR) for this demonstration because they happen to have both third and fourth generation Camaro and S197 chassis lower control arms and relocation brackets that they sell. The cost for the S197 (05-14 years) Mustang lower control arms ranges from $139.95 for a simple poly bushing, boxed DOM, control arms all the way up to $349.95 for CNC machined 6061 T6 aluminum control arms. The first is by far the most commonly sold one. Their S197 relocation brackets cost $149.95 and are 100% bolt on, no welding required. The no welding required includes sub 10 second quarter mile time S197's weighing in at 3500+ (their GT500 ran 9.XXX on these bolted in on drag slicks).
For the fourth generation F-Body Camaros and Trans Ams the control arms range from $149.95 all the way up to $289.95 and the relocation brackets cost $109.95 for a complete bolt in set of brackets.
As you can see, these are not expensive parts in the grand scheme of things and yet they have such a profound impact on live axle handling that they are common first modifications to cars.
3.) Performance: While it is no doubt that the commonality of lower control arms and relocation brackets has to do with the popularity of the pony cars in drag racing, there are some distinct advantages that come from these modifications in the autocross world. First and foremost, axle hop caused by soft factory bushings which are designed to allow the rear axle to articulate without too much bind (ignoring all Fox Body and SN95 Mustangs of course!
) is cured or mitigated with replacing the lower control arms. The upper control arm on S197 cars and the Torque Arm on the third and fourth gen Camaros are already free to be replaced and is the other axle hop mitigating allowance. The instant center adjustment provided by the relocation brackets allows lowered live axle cars to regain some forward bite caused from the control arm angle change reducing the amount of anti-squat available to the car. While high amounts of antisquat are not necessarily desirable from a handling perspective, retaining SOME antisquat helps these cars put down more power but more importantly it makes the car more FUN to drive because you don't turn your $1500 set of Hoosier A6's or $1300 set of RS3's into expensive smoke any time you look at your gas pedal. On my own car, the factory %AS number is around 34%. Just from lowering my ride height to the still-too-tall-to-be-an-ST-car ride height in the rear of my car I'm down to somewhere between 5%-8%. Under the current rules, due to floor pan constraints there is no way for me to pull that number up by relocating the axle side of the UCA and there is no legal allowance for changing the bracket that holds the UCA in place to lower the axle side (understandable considering that the 05-14 Mustangs are the only cars I know that have such a bracket separate from the Unibody). The only legal modification in which we can do is to exploit the Camaro's Torque Arm allowance and run a torque arm which gets me up to %28 antisquat but with that comes a weight disadvantage and the potential to introduce rear suspension murdering brake hop.
These modifications impact more than just third and fourth generation Camaros and Trans Ams and the 05-14 Mustangs, it also comes with something that makes racing an older Fox Body Mustang (or any fox body for that fact) and SN95 Mustang much more SIMPLE by reducing the cost of developing a weight jacker setup that sits on the rear lower control arm. For these guys, the rear springs are located on the rear lower control arms which in combination with the awful bindfest masquerading as a rear suspension in the car isn't the most ideal setup but under the current rules these guys are required to develop a weight jacker setup that sits on the lower control arms just to corner balance their cars. This requires some custom fabrication that adds to the cost of what is supposed to be your two least expensive class for modified cars. The aftermarket has dozens of weight jacker control arms that have adjustable built in spring perches that would allow for ride height and corner balancing changes to be made to the car without spending the money to develop a complex weight jacker setup to work on the stock control arms. These weight jacker arms are also far more safe than anything that sits on the stock control arm is.
So here is what I propose for the new allowance to say:
14.8.G.X: The lower arms may be removed, replaced, or modified and the pickup points on the rear axle housing may be relocated using bolted on or welded on brackets attached to the factory control arm mounting positions on the axle.
As you can see, the wording is pulled directly from the upper arms allowance (currently 14.8.G.4) with a part added on that should limit these brackets to the same plane (in front or rear view) as the factory mounting points. I can even see adding a provision that says that you can either relocate the upper control arm axle side or the lower control arm axle side but not both. This is not new as a similar statement is made for strut cars and replacing the lower control arm as being allowed so long as it is the only form of camber adjustment on the car.
I would like to thank you again for helping remove the perception barrier of Pony cars in ST with the move to STU and I hope that the move in combination with the above allowances will help the SCCA keep and retain a crowd that isn't interested in building their car as a dedicated SCCA autocross cars but something a little more "universal" that they can take to the drags on Friday nights and then come out to the autocross event on Sunday.
Excellent letter, Whiskey.... 
Looks like my letter supporting yours was the next in line. If any other SCCA members are reading this and like this proposal, get to writing. http://www.sebscca.com/
letter number #12064 said:
Looks like my letter supporting yours was the next in line. If any other SCCA members are reading this and like this proposal, get to writing. http://www.sebscca.com/
sholzer
forum member
Good writeup Whiskey!
#12065 has been written as well in support of letter #12063
#12065 has been written as well in support of letter #12063
dontlifttoshift
forum member
I covered relo brackets in my last letter. Is it in bad taste to write another letter regarding the same subject before the previous letter has been addressed?
Also related, won't they need to make a similar allowance in ESP then? Certainly the lowly ST classes won't be allowed more freedom than "street" prepared. Really not sure if this would become more or less likely to go through if the ESP crowd backed this.
Also related, won't they need to make a similar allowance in ESP then? Certainly the lowly ST classes won't be allowed more freedom than "street" prepared. Really not sure if this would become more or less likely to go through if the ESP crowd backed this.
Last edited:
Whiskey11
SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Posts
- 1,644
- Reaction score
- 2
SP inherits all allowances from ST and Stock/Street by virtue of the class wording in the opening section of the SP rules so any allowance allowed in the lower classes already is legal in SP provided there isnt a rule restricting it already in SP.
brdollmeyer
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Posts
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
Excellent letter, Whiskey....
Looks like my letter supporting yours was the next in line. If any other SCCA members are reading this and like this proposal, get to writing. http://www.sebscca.com/
Done.
Whiskey11
SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Posts
- 1,644
- Reaction score
- 2
This momentum behind Mustangs in ST is going to pay dividends to live axle cars out side of ST as well so maybe we can get some of the ESP guys here to jump on board and write in. It seemed that Randall Prince was at least receptive to the idea as was Jason Rhoades. I'm not sure if either are on the STAC or not though. I have no idea where to look up who is on the STAC...
DILYSI Dave
forum member
scca site, login, and from there you can find a link to comittees somewhere.
Whiskey11
SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Posts
- 1,644
- Reaction score
- 2
Found it! Thanks! Looks like Jason is an STAC member and some Dave Hardy guy is a Chairman and BOD Liason? Who is that guy?
And then there's the "Oh while we're at it, let's just go ahead and slide this C5 into STU also..."
One of these things is not like the other...
I just submitted letter 12070 about that one. A C5 Corvette with an automatic and base gears will do nearly 60 MPH in first gear, and should be plentiful and cheap, but it belongs with other two seat sports cars (including the 350Z/370Z) in STR, where the Miata guys can cringe instead.
Justin
Whiskey, nice letter. If you get LCAs and relocation brackets allowed for Pony cars running STU, I will start competing in SCCA events. (My car currently runs 180-treadwear 285s on all four corners and aftermarket LCAs and brackets. I run a few SCCA events each year and currently put myself into the "non-competition" class for that reason.)
Got my letter in: 12076
I endorsed Whiskey's letter, and asked for a couple other things, namely more tire (figure we ought to get that worm in the ear asap) and the removal of the C5. ESP pax is .849, STU is .846. No way even a 315 street tire is within .3 seconds of ESP on a 60 second course.
I said "easy" and "fun" a lot.
I endorsed Whiskey's letter, and asked for a couple other things, namely more tire (figure we ought to get that worm in the ear asap) and the removal of the C5. ESP pax is .849, STU is .846. No way even a 315 street tire is within .3 seconds of ESP on a 60 second course.
I said "easy" and "fun" a lot.
cito
forum member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2011
- Posts
- 57
- Reaction score
- 0
The corvette fits better in STU than the Mustang. The s197 Mustang is just as f'd in STU, if not more, than in STX. The letters should be written for a new class, STP. STPonycar.
Whiskey11
SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Posts
- 1,644
- Reaction score
- 2
This is all part of a greater plan. First thing was to destroy the perception of 9" wheels and 265's on high HP V8 powered cars as being "normal". From the comments made about this last FasTrack on the Sandbox it seems like they first tried to figure out a way to do it in STX before recommending going to STU. Now that the perception is gone, I honestly think we will see more builds for National level IN SPITE of the fact that STU is faster, by a healthy margin.
The rest is to work our way up on allowances until we can find a pace that matches a place to play that makes sense. STX makes sense time wise, but doesn't wheels/tires wise. This at least allows the STAC/SEB that opportunity to tweak the rules without the risk of over shooting and making a Mustang "the car to have". I don't think anyone truly wants a class where Mustangs dominate it. I know I'd rather have a competitive class with a variety of cars.
That was at least my impetus for writing in in favor of the move to STU.
So I am confused. If I have springs and LCAs and relo brackets with 9.5 wheel and 275 tire what class should I be running? I thought I was supposed to run ESP but its sounding like because of the LCA I cant even do that....
Whiskey11
SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Posts
- 1,644
- Reaction score
- 2
Correct, SM or CP because of the LCA's and relocation brackets. If you didn't have those, ESP or STU (next year).
white86hatch
forum member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Posts
- 182
- Reaction score
- 0
<----Adam on dfw50s.
Yep. Scca rules are maddening. Just run cp or sm and compare to stu.
Yeah this is a good direction. The car is at least fun to autocross on 285's with wider wheels. It's amazing how much difference 20mm makes.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
What would YOU do for an engine build in my situation?- Latest: Midlife Crises
-
Support us!
Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!
Click Here For Details
Sponsor Links
