STX Build Thread
- Thread starter 122 Vega
- Start date
CrazyCaker
Member
- :
- '10 Stang GT / '06 Mazda5 GT
bad deal. I'll be inspecting mine closely when it arrives. thanks for the heads up.
Well. second time was easier, got the MAM manifold out to go back to Beau tomorrow and the factory manifold back in in about three hours, and the car runs!
I was hoping that I could get it out without pulling the turbo, but no luck, the water coolant line prevents that.
Didn't get the brakes bled yet, but I replaced all the mounting hardware for the AWRs tonight, remounted my belt harnesses so I can run with the seats down. Maybe I'll try to get it aligned and the wheels studs put in tomorrow after I bleed the brakes out.
I'm getting super psyched to go out and run, but I'll probably have to learn to drive it all over again since the car is pretty much all new. I forgot, I have to get it cornerweighted before I align it.
Wish my Rotas would get here already! I might have to buy the Slipstreams and then use them for some R-comps for track days after the Boost gets here.
I have to keep reminding myself that this is a build up for next year, but it's just going faster than I thought it would. I wasn't even going to run at the National Tour, but I need seat time, I haven't had much in the past two years, so why not!
Pics of the car with the AWRs after I get it weighted and aligned.
Britt
I was hoping that I could get it out without pulling the turbo, but no luck, the water coolant line prevents that.
Didn't get the brakes bled yet, but I replaced all the mounting hardware for the AWRs tonight, remounted my belt harnesses so I can run with the seats down. Maybe I'll try to get it aligned and the wheels studs put in tomorrow after I bleed the brakes out.
I'm getting super psyched to go out and run, but I'll probably have to learn to drive it all over again since the car is pretty much all new. I forgot, I have to get it cornerweighted before I align it.
Wish my Rotas would get here already! I might have to buy the Slipstreams and then use them for some R-comps for track days after the Boost gets here.
I have to keep reminding myself that this is a build up for next year, but it's just going faster than I thought it would. I wasn't even going to run at the National Tour, but I need seat time, I haven't had much in the past two years, so why not!
Pics of the car with the AWRs after I get it weighted and aligned.
Britt
props to you for not getting bogged down in the problems and just giving up on it 
. I've seen a few builds on here end at the 1st sign of trouble. And I'm glad MAM's takin care of you. would've been nice to get it right the 1st time, I know, but you can't win 'em all 
. I've seen a few builds on here end at the 1st sign of trouble. And I'm glad MAM's takin care of you. would've been nice to get it right the 1st time, I know, but you can't win 'em all Hey Britt, I started a thread to help me hash out something.
http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2582230#post2582230
I would love your input on the AWR struts. I'm looking to order new coilovers by the end of this week. Several things that I would like to know...how much of a height difference the shorter AWR struts give and how much height adjustability they allow. Even with 450lbs springs my rear tires will rub if I go too low unless I get pretty aggressive on the fenders. I know the valving in them will be top notch, but is it going to be a hinderance not being able to adjust for different surfaces and conditions? thanks in advance I'm looking forward to you input over on my thread.
http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2582230#post2582230
I would love your input on the AWR struts. I'm looking to order new coilovers by the end of this week. Several things that I would like to know...how much of a height difference the shorter AWR struts give and how much height adjustability they allow. Even with 450lbs springs my rear tires will rub if I go too low unless I get pretty aggressive on the fenders. I know the valving in them will be top notch, but is it going to be a hinderance not being able to adjust for different surfaces and conditions? thanks in advance I'm looking forward to you input over on my thread.
Well, bad newss in the August SCCA Fast Track. They are proposing raising the seat wieght requirement to 25lbs including the mounting hardware. Seems some a**wipe showed up to Nationals with his passenger seat velcroed to the floor... Some people are so stupid...Why do we have to pay for them being so stupid?
So the SCCA thinks that adding this wording with force people to use proper mounting hardware to prevent "unsafe mounting" of seats. I see that same guy showing up with a 10 lbs free weight velcroed in his passenger seat next year.
If you think this is a poor solution to a safety issue, please email seb@scca.org and tell them so. But do it nicely please. Also, I think you have to be an SCCA member for your opinion to count.
Britt
So the SCCA thinks that adding this wording with force people to use proper mounting hardware to prevent "unsafe mounting" of seats. I see that same guy showing up with a 10 lbs free weight velcroed in his passenger seat next year.
If you think this is a poor solution to a safety issue, please email seb@scca.org and tell them so. But do it nicely please. Also, I think you have to be an SCCA member for your opinion to count.
Britt
how much is the proposal really going to change anything, though, beyond getting rid of those ridiculous mounting methods?
the current rule (14.2.B) states, "the seat, not including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 15 pounds."
the proposed rule reads, "the seat, including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 25 pounds and must be attached using the OE mounting holes/studs. Additional attachment points may be added."
so while the weight min would increase, you could also count a lot of stuff that was already in the car anyway. there might be a few pounds to add if the brackets aren't 10 lbs, but it's up for proposal...if there is a better number, folks shuld include it in their letters.
i think the important language is the "OE attachment point" language, which would seem to prevent velcro w/ another 10 pounds of ballast-type arrangements.
the current rule (14.2.B) states, "the seat, not including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 15 pounds."
the proposed rule reads, "the seat, including mounting hardware, must weigh at least 25 pounds and must be attached using the OE mounting holes/studs. Additional attachment points may be added."
so while the weight min would increase, you could also count a lot of stuff that was already in the car anyway. there might be a few pounds to add if the brackets aren't 10 lbs, but it's up for proposal...if there is a better number, folks shuld include it in their letters.
i think the important language is the "OE attachment point" language, which would seem to prevent velcro w/ another 10 pounds of ballast-type arrangements.
What would it change? Well the fact that I'd have to put nine pounds of steel under each seat and some how attach it to the brackets. If you can mount a seat in a Touring car to FIA approved standards, why not in a street car? Why have to use factory mounting points when bolt in cages are allowed in IT classes and Prepared classes that can and will punch through the floor during a roll over? Why does the SCCA think that the floor is strong enough for a cage at triple digit speeds, but not a seat mount at 60 mph "or less?" This is an item that should be addressed by the Tech at events. If people are showing up with velcroed and taped seats, then the car should not be allowed to compete. Techs job is to not allow unsafe car from competing. I personally think mounting nine pounds of unecessary steel under each of my seats is more dangerous than teh FIA approved mounting of my seats.
But it doesn't really matter, ballast that is ony 8" off the ground doesn't hurt anyone. Unless it comes loose. If people are velcroing seats down, who says they won't velcro ballast down?
All the new rule will do is add to the weight that can hurt and kill people in a wreck when it comes loose.
If I can mount my seats in my Prepared car to the floor (they aren't, they are mounted to the cage, but just for arguement's sake), why not in ST which is PAXed as a slower class?
Britt
But it doesn't really matter, ballast that is ony 8" off the ground doesn't hurt anyone. Unless it comes loose. If people are velcroing seats down, who says they won't velcro ballast down?
All the new rule will do is add to the weight that can hurt and kill people in a wreck when it comes loose.
If I can mount my seats in my Prepared car to the floor (they aren't, they are mounted to the cage, but just for arguement's sake), why not in ST which is PAXed as a slower class?
Britt
i suppose b/c "Street Touring" cars are *supposed* to still be streetable, unlike Prepared cars...or at least that's the theory and spirit of the class.
if there is another way to objectively police the mounting, i'm sure that suggestion would be welcomed; but i would be hesitant to advocate a system where tech people had to pass judgement on the safety of a competitor's seat mounting method with no objective criteria. checking a battery for movement is one thing; subjectively assessing the sufficiency of a seat mount is another.
i'm not on the SEB, but after reading some of the rationale behind the proposal, i changed my opinion regarding it. it's entirely possible this proposal isn't the best solution, but i haven't heard any others.
edit: if "FIA-approved mounting only" is a better solution, i'll buy into that b/c i agree that the new wording doesn't close all potential loopholes.
if there is another way to objectively police the mounting, i'm sure that suggestion would be welcomed; but i would be hesitant to advocate a system where tech people had to pass judgement on the safety of a competitor's seat mounting method with no objective criteria. checking a battery for movement is one thing; subjectively assessing the sufficiency of a seat mount is another.
i'm not on the SEB, but after reading some of the rationale behind the proposal, i changed my opinion regarding it. it's entirely possible this proposal isn't the best solution, but i haven't heard any others.
edit: if "FIA-approved mounting only" is a better solution, i'll buy into that b/c i agree that the new wording doesn't close all potential loopholes.
Last edited:
I'm not suggestimg that all cars in ST have to have FIA approved mounts or seats. that wouls eliminate all folding back seats like the Torino.
If a Tech guy can't determine if a seat is mounted solidly, then I don't think they should be in Tech.
Britt
If a Tech guy can't determine if a seat is mounted solidly, then I don't think they should be in Tech.
Britt
