When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm a little behind on catching up here, but have two questions/points.
First, on the 315's and wanting to get more caster to fit them easier... caster jacking is a thing, and it's not good. I wish we could run less caster and still fit them. I don't think more caster would help though, because we also run into clearance problems in the front. I know someone is running the 295 on a 17x11 this year. I'm very very curious to see how that turns out, I think it could be very fast given how light the setup is (better acceleration) and that the 295 is more stretched on the 11 which likely improves the feel.
Thought it was by my interpretation; I was thinking it’s just a pickup for the pump and would be allowed for that reason. “Fuel pumps and lines are unrestricted”. We’re allowed to mount a second pump there, so why not? The tank itself isn’t modified in any way. It’s also not an additional tank or reservoir. Guess I’d like to hear other opinions about it since you brought it up.
I’m shooting for 275s on 17x10.5 with max inboard offset to try and avoid the pinch weld; should be approx +45 or so on 10.5” width. I’m looking for a pair of CCW 17” x 2” wide outer lips if anyone knows of any. Hit the motherlode last week on inner barrels and a pair of outer lips to convert my 18” CCWs to 17”.
.
The only "fuel filter" on the RX8 is the sock that the hydra-mat replaces though, right? The fuel filter cannot be messed with (much), with how the rules are written. I interpreted it as a hydra-mat would not be legal until SM. The pickup they are referencing is for the oil.
15.10.A. Engines must retain standard type lubricating system, but may have any oil pan (Accusump®-type systems allowed), oil pump and pickup, oil cooler(s), or oil or fuel filters. Fuel filters must be of automotive type and may serve no other purpose; a substituted fuel filter may not be used as a reservoir. Substituted fuel filters may not exceed one quart total capacity.
Where do you see you can mount a second pump? I must be missing it. I don't even see allowances for fuel pumps until street mod actually, but I thought they were allowed to be upgraded in DSP... we're running the OE pump though, so I haven't' looked into it much.
15.10.H. Fuel lines and pumps are unrestricted except as specified herein, as long
as they do not pose a safety hazard. Fuel lines may be no larger than 1⁄2” (12.7 mm) i.d. (inside diameter) and may only connect to the original fuel tank or allowed fuel cell. They may be no longer than necessary for reasonable and safe installation, and may serve no other purpose. A single fuel feed line may be used. A single fuel return line may be used and a fitting for connecting it may be added at or near the top of the fuel tank. This does not authorize “cool-cans.”
the filter thing you’re referencing was in regard to people who tried installing a large size to act as a secondary sump tank many years ago. You might be overthinking it some. The intent in SP is to allow reasonable intake and fuel system mods with some conditional restraints to keep people from going overboard trying to do make clever interpretations.
I didn’t do anything with the pump module itself other than swap in one from an S2 with a higher flowing pump direct-installed into it. I installed a hydramat in place of the factory pickup on the other side of the saddlebag fuel tank. The siphon on the factory pump module pulls fuel over from the other side of the tank using that pickup. It’s part of the pump and fuel line system was my interpretation. Which per the rule above it seems fairly clear would be allowable.
.
I'm still not certain on the Hydramat though, I would interpret is as not legal and that's why we aren't running one. You can safely run without fuel starving if you run a fuller tank, so a hydramat would be a performance advantage due to being able to run a lower fuel level. I'll ask around to a few SP people and report back. If it is legal, I know what my next purchase will be
Well on some factory in-tank pumps you can’t necessarily use the original pickup or module and the replacement is unrestricted. You can use more that one pump (again; unrestricted and it’s “pumps” plural), and again I only have that on the siphon pickup, not on the pump side. So it’s not quite the same as you’re stating, though imo you can legally do that. I didn’t consider it necessary or worth the bother. I suppose you might be better served to send a letter to the SEB/**** if you’re really that concerned about it.
Just realized I haven't shared any videos from this season. Here's the latest from this weekend. It was a very fast course, near or at limiter almost everywhere, with lots of spots that turning 6" too late or too early could cost you the entire section due to how fast you were going. I hip checked a cone in this video, but after not hitting any cones at all in my previous event, or even this event until my last run, I knew I wasn't pushing the limits hard enough, so it was due I'm a little rusty since this was only the third event in the car this season (been doing some road racing and also brought our 818 out to an event), so hopefully I can shake it off before nationals in a few weeks.
There are two fuel filters on the RX-8. The pump pre-filter "sock" and the post-filter built into the fuel pump assembly.
Unofficial opinion, but I would regard the "pump" as the assembly. Meaning everything from the pickup to the outlet to the fuel lines. So I would interpret Hydramat to be a legal modification to the fuel pump, whether on the siphon side or the main pump side or both. But you can always write in to get a clarification. I think we meet this week on Wednesday so if you want a clarification, write in soon
Thought it was by my interpretation; I was thinking it’s just a pickup for the pump and would be allowed for that reason. “Fuel pumps and lines are unrestricted”. We’re allowed to mount a second pump there, so why not? The tank itself isn’t modified in any way. It’s also not an additional tank or reservoir. Guess I’d like to hear other opinions about it since you brought it up.
I’m shooting for 275s on 17x10.5 with max inboard offset to try and avoid the pinch weld; should be approx +45 or so on 10.5” width. I’m looking for a pair of CCW 17” x 2” wide outer lips if anyone knows of any. Hit the motherlode last week on inner barrels and a pair of outer lips to convert my 18” CCWs to 17”.
.
I know the 17x10 with a 45mm offset just barely clears everything inboard.
Sure, just wrote in. Like I said, I wouldn't mind having the option, I just hadn't added one because I didn't think it was legal. It would obviously be a performance advantage if it is legal, so it'll pretty much mean most people will feel like they need to buy them if their cars have any problems with fuel starving in sweepers (like the RX8).
It won't be clarified before nationals, so I won't be running one this year.
I know the 17x10 with a 45mm offset just barely clears everything inboard.
My CCW 18x10 are 50mm and clear, so same backspace on 10.5” is 44mm. I ran SSR 18x10.5 +43 with 265 tires in the early STX days before they made the tire & wheel width limits, but I have a baziilon spacers, so no problem adjusting it some if needed.
.
We ran our car down to where the fuel light was on once. Didn't notice any starvation on course. However, when we went to drain the fuel after the event, it had air bubbles in it (starving sitting still) rather than being a stream of fuel. We didn't believe it, so added a gallon of fuel and checked again, and sure it enough it went to a steady stream of fuel until it emptied it out, then started with air again. We now run 1/4 tank to not risk the engine.
I'd rather not talk about people hiding things to cheat purposefully. That's grounds for a ban from SCCA, and I don't think we have anyone in the class with that sort of mentality. Not everyone advertises everything, but I don't think anyone is hiding anything either. I bet we have a few accidental illegal things in class, but I would like to believe nothing purposeful.
You were the one who went down the path of saying you *could* turn off the light and modify the fuel gauge to read fuller than actual to hide that you were running a hydramat (assuming it is found to be illegal, which we don't know yet). I don't think you would actually do that, but it's not a joking matter if someone were to do that.
JV thinks it could be legal, others I've asked say no it's not legal. Seems like a good idea to get it clarified before installing one, so I submitted a letter to ask.
In addition to the brake rotor weight savings another 1/2 pound/corner was removed modifying the mounts. Nothing huge here, but any weight taken off the front end is good in my book. Replacement rotor discs are dirt cheap too. I can afford to change them often if wear etc is an issue compared to the original ones.
No Tamra, it seems more like you were possibly confused and didn’t properly negotiate the context of the discussion. I sincerely believe that it is allowed; claiming my openness of posting about it as proof. Because why would it, or anything else I’ve shown and told everyone about, be posted here if it was my intention to be dishonest?
You then claimed you’d have known anyway, which I’m not sure how you’d be in any position as a competitor to see the light on my fuel gauge. Maybe you also forgot my post earlier in this thread where I installed a dash display in front of the OE dash, but playing along with such a notion I pointed out that *if* it was my goal to intentionally deceive anyone that it was more than technically possible to do so.
All that occurred here is a misunderstanding, including the implication of my trustworthiness. Even if I had kept it to myself it doesn’t mean it was done out of dishonesty. Maybe I wouldn’t want my competitors to have the benefit of something that is allowed, but not obvious.
The biggest cheater around is likely the one playing off coy and innocent. Just because it seems obvious doesn’t mean we grasp the situation accurately. Further, if we’re discussing the technical aspects about what’s possible or not it doesn’t imply anything one way or the other. You’re either informed or you’re not.
I otherwise apologize for letting it get under my skin and being short with you. I hope these words more accurately reflect the situation and my feelings about it. .
Thanks. And to be clear, I don't think you're trying to do anything illegal or hide it from us, but sometimes how you word things can make it seem that way (you deleted a comment saying how what I should really be worried about are the things you haven't posted here about... those sorts of statements don't build trust).I think you just said it because you were angry and not because you've actually done anything illegal, I hope. We have a good group of friendly people here in DSP, let's keep it that way.
Curious to see what the Fast Track clarification decides on the hydramat. If it's legal, I'll add one for the performance advantage.
I just checked the forum and I don't see it on there, meaning Doug hasn't routed it to us yet. So unfortunately it won't get discussed on tonight's call.
In addition to the brake rotor weight savings another 1/2 pound/corner was removed modifying the mounts. Nothing huge here, but any weight taken off the front end is good in my book. Replacement rotor discs are dirt cheap too. I can afford to change them often if wear etc is an issue compared to the original ones.
Hey Mark,
So what do you see as the total weight savings compared to stock for your brake setup?
I have the RB light front rotors (stock RX-8 size) up front, and the rest of the brake setup is stock (Stock calipers front and rear, stock rear rotors). I'd like to duplicate your setup in the offseason, if it's still possible to do so.
Just FYI that this might be a source for CCW shells. Regarding my inquiry for the 17” size they claim to have all of the 1.5” - 4.5” wide outer blank lips in stock and can drill/polish them out within 2-3 weeks from order. I didn’t think to ask about 18” though since I’m shying away from the additional weight of them, but will confirm my experience.
Tamra, I’d rather not let you have it with both barrels and would instead prefer that you avoid tempting me. Please have the common courtesy to worry about what people think of yourself and leave me out of it.
Regarding the brakes, I’m not entirely sure on the front. Since I didn’t have the OE front brake system a direct comparison wasn’t attempted. I know what my car weighed previously and am mostly tracking the difference from that. Which the rotor weight was posted several pages back and also above that weight was reduced on the mounting system. I don’t think RB lists the total differential of their front brake system compared to OE; only their rotor and caliper weights. Which it seemed to me that the RB rotors might be heavier that stated on their website based on what my worn, used rotor weighed. In total, 3 lbs was removed from each front corner from whatever their kit weighs.
.
Another potential wheel is the Titan T-R10, which they have an FD3 listing of 18x10.5 +50. At the moment they don’t list the specific weight for this application, but the same model/size listed for other cars is 19.5 lbs. MSRP for a full set is $2100. It will need either an approx 7mm spacer or steering limiters to keep the inside lip edge from hitting the control arm or swaybar at full steering lock.
They also have two different 17x9.5 wheels listed for the S2000 that can work too; one with 57mm offset at 16.5# and another at 51mm offset at 16.8 lbs. I see them selling for mid-upper $1800/set range. Both are a direct bolt on and shouldn’t hit anything.
08-05-2019, 10:07 AM
