Sponsored

SCCA F-Street Setup. What's Everyone Done so Far?

ahhter

Active Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
34
Reaction score
30
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT PP
Disclaimer -- I am no longer in FS as I sold my 2011.75 BMW M3 ZCP (of which there were several thousand built between 2011-2013) for less than $22k so I would characterize the car as overly expensive or rare. People have significantly stopped coming to Nat's in pony cars either out of the perception they can't compete or have just chosen to run in CAMC with more mod allowances. That's the reason for shrinking numbers. I've always felt that Leeder could have won in 2018 but didn't drive to his best. They can't move the M3 out for 2020, and it is fair more likely that in 2021, you'll see the PP2, probably the SS1 1LE, and maybe the GT350 although that's less likely. That said, I could see them also move the next gen M3/M4 down as well. All this will not bode well for folks who have PP1 or a regular GT unless you can do a full package update easily.
Though it doesn't benefit me, I agree that the more likely path is going to be to move the faster trims down to FS. The cars aren't getting slower so the days are numbered on the current base/PP1 GTs and Camaro equivalents anyways.
Sponsored

 

3pdl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Threads
5
Messages
154
Reaction score
128
Location
us
Vehicle(s)
'19 mustang gt pp1, '82 f150
thanks for all the replies. fwiw i registered for the next event under stu which, to my reading of the rules allows for my mods. i don't want to compete with disqualifying mods. stu allows 285 width tires so a set of 19x10 sve sp2's is in my future. also, camber plates.
 

thasuperdude

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Threads
0
Messages
75
Reaction score
76
Location
Atlanta, GA
First Name
Randy
Vehicle(s)
2019 Mustang GT
Vehicle Showcase
1
Ha! Good to see you in other forums, z3papa! I move into a GT last year, just for the sheer fun of this car. I do miss the super fast steering rack the M cars have.

The SCCA is just trying to stay on top all the new tech cars are coming out with. There's no perfect science to getting new cars classed. The history between the BRZ vs FRS packages was crazy, then came the ND Miata and changed the whole scope of CS. The times are always changin'...
 

ahhter

Active Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
34
Reaction score
30
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT PP
thanks for all the replies. fwiw i registered for the next event under stu which, to my reading of the rules allows for my mods. i don't want to compete with disqualifying mods. stu allows 285 width tires so a set of 19x10 sve sp2's is in my future. also, camber plates.
You're better off signing up for CAM-C; softer PAX and more comparable competition. STU cars are a fair amount faster than CAM-C thanks to lower weights and AWD.
 

NightmareMoon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Threads
41
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
4,643
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT PP
Vehicle Showcase
1
You're better off signing up for CAM-C; softer PAX and more comparable competition. STU cars are a fair amount faster than CAM-C thanks to lower weights and AWD.
Its true, good STU cars (AWD Subaru STIs for example) will probably be faster than most CAM cars driven by jean-shorts and mullet sporting drivers (and PAX is about as scientific as that). Your 10”/285 tire isn’t as limiting as the lower weight and size of the typical STU cars. You’d be in better pony-car company in CAMC.
 

Sponsored

Schnupper

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
29
Reaction score
19
Location
Chicagoland
Vehicle(s)
Black
I finally upgraded the shocks/struts on my car a few weekends ago.I still need to go get it realigned but at this point there is no rush since all the events are still canceled. I have it set 1.75 up front and about .75 in rear. I might end up softening the rear a little more. I still have a BMR front bar to put on... but I really want to drive the car as is and see how I like it before tossing the front bar on.



96540342_1984253141739513_6820624467975208960_n.jpg
97223818_2622040488043662_4944871490848817152_n.jpg
94393215_223626859057959_2706529188386439168_n.jpg
 

Dana Pants

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Threads
10
Messages
948
Reaction score
950
Location
Burlington MA
First Name
Dana
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT PP1
did you slot the front struts for camber according Ford procedure?

Also, you should push every fastener in the direction of more camber when putting the front of the car back together. I also did this for all the big control arm bolts. They all had some slop to give.

My current notes show 0.25 turns on the rear shocks and 1.25 turns on the front shocks. More rear = early slide and more front = pushy entry.
 

Schnupper

Active Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2017
Threads
0
Messages
29
Reaction score
19
Location
Chicagoland
Vehicle(s)
Black
did you slot the front struts for camber according Ford procedure?

Also, you should push every fastener in the direction of more camber when putting the front of the car back together. I also did this for all the big control arm bolts. They all had some slop to give.

My current notes show 0.25 turns on the rear shocks and 1.25 turns on the front shocks. More rear = early slide and more front = pushy entry.
Yes I slotted the fronts 1mm and new service bolts.
 

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
89
Messages
14,608
Reaction score
12,098
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
Vehicle Showcase
2
I still have a BMR front bar to put on... but I really want to drive the car as is and see how I like it before tossing the front bar on.
when replacing front bar, also need beefier end-link. The spaghetti link bends very easily.
 

shogun32

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Threads
89
Messages
14,608
Reaction score
12,098
Location
Northern VA
First Name
Matt
Vehicle(s)
'19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
Vehicle Showcase
2
I have heard that from many, but my oem endlinks did not bend when used on the medium setting with the BMR bar.
fair enough. The shop I use says he gets Mustangs in all the time that have bent the links. I didn't grill him for a controlled double-blind study as to what bars, settings, and how much the car had been lowered. The last may well be a significant contributing factory. In tension the skinny shank is I'm sure fine. It's in compression when things go poorly.
 

Sponsored

kz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
58
Messages
4,102
Reaction score
2,399
Location
West Chester, OH
Vehicle(s)
Mustangs & F150
It's funny, because I have heard that from many, but my oem endlinks did not bend when used on the medium setting with the BMR bar. Many adjustable replacements don't have significantly greater section, and many of the ones that do are made from aluminum.

It's a good idea to get adjustable links to remove any preload from the bar.
Mine bent immediately - BMR bar on softest setting.
 

NightmareMoon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Threads
41
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
4,643
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT PP
Vehicle Showcase
1
Agreed on running the front bar. Get a couple miles to get a feel for the shocks by themselves for comparison purposes then slap that bar on there! Stiffer front bar gives the rear some tolerance for stabbing the throttle at the apex and exiting the corner with confidence. It wants to be on the gas.

My front endlinks also bent with the stock PP1 front bar pretty quickly. I'm not sure what the effects of two similarly bent endlinks would be, then don't seem to bend more than a little so the overall length of the link doesn't change much, and they seem to survive fine in that bent position. IDK what's up with that. Like many, I replaced them when I put on a BMR front bar.

Preferences for shock settings seem to be all over the places. I liked 1.75 front, but ran almost as much rear rebound as that to get better corner entry rotation and roll through mid corner. The car just understeered and fought me getting down to the apex until I increased the rear rebound, but I know some guys like nearly full soft in the rear.
 

ahhter

Active Member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
34
Reaction score
30
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2017 GT PP
So.... latest Fastrack has two proposals for changing up F-Street. The tl;dr of the two options is either move all the FS cars up to BS and totally reinvent FS as a new "cheap sedan" class in the spirit of ES, or move all the BS muscle cars to FS to increase the overall speed of FS. I hate them both because neither benefit me personally :cwl:

Concept 1: Move the “Track Ponies” from BS to FS. Moving the Camaro SS 1LE, Mustang GT350, Mustang PP2, and similar US manufacturer cars would maintain the current definition of FS while introducing additional chassis which appear capable of competitive parity with the German cars. While moving the track focused muscle cars may benefit FS participation, the SAC is concerned that it may have a detrimental effect on BS participation levels, because these “Track Ponies” have demonstrated competitive parity in BS. Also, the SAC believes that the types of cars and relative speed of BS and FS would overlap until one class’s performance envelope evolves. This provides an opportunity to move additional cars into BS to effectively differentiate BS and FS and mitigate a participation decline. The SAC would like feedback from current BS and FS participants on the perceived benefits or pitfalls of this move. For example: are there other BS cars that should be included such as the F80/82 M3 and M4? Are there any candidates which could be moved from AS to BS as a part of this move?

Concept 2: Consolidate FS cars into BS. Redefine FS as a class for “affordable older enthusiast coupes / sedans” with an emphasis on lower cost of entry and acceptable availability. Under this proposal most cars currently classed in FS would be moved to BS to consolidate the two classes. FS would be redefined in the Section 13 preamble and Appendix A. The goal for this new class would be to expand on the formula which has made ES successful by creating a class for affordable enthusiast coupes / sedans. Whereas ES is focused as a sports car class, FS would be focused on chassis with back seats that had already undergone a significant portion of their depreciation.

Potential cars, representing one contemplated performance envelope, for this new class would be:
BMW M3 (E36) (1995-1999)
Mazda RX-8 (all)
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (2003-06)
Nissan 350Z (non-NISMO) (2003-09)
Subaru WRX (2009-14)
Subaru WRX STi (2002-06)

Are there additional, alternate cars or other performance envelopes that should be under consideration if FS was redefined for affordable enthusiasts coupes and sedans?
 
 




Top