Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 R-X Rule Change Proposals -- Submit 'Em Here!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If the rule was about visibility, why is it written as such? The edge of the windshield is outside the field of vision and whether it has a "raised surface" or not has zero impact on visibility either.

    Should we also ban any events where the ground is wet or dusty? Mud/grass on the windshield and driving through your own dust cloud affect visibility a lot more. That would make more sense if the justification was "visibility".

    Last edited by Pete; 02-20-2017, 01:34 PM.
    '84 RX-7 #9 Mod Rear
    '81 RX-7 #74 Prepared Rear
    '06 S60R #588
    '86 Quantum Syncro #34 Mod AWD

    Comment


    • #17
      From what I understand, the windshield rule isn't going away. So, let's negotiate a little and get a rule we can live with. Something that directly addresses what an obviously "bad" one is, and gives some wiggle room on the ones that are a bit more "questionable".

      Or, we can continue to gripe about how much we hate the rule in the first place and get stuck with it as is.
      Jim Perrin
      WNY Region
      NEDIV RX Steward

      Comment


      • #18
        Oh, that does remind me....
        Rule Feedback Loop: For a rule to be adopted, it must be presented to membership for feedback in it's intended, unaltered form. If the verbiage is altered, it MUST be reposted in its new form for feedback before it can be adopted.

        There should be a specific minimum period of time associated with it - something like it must be posted for at least 30 days prior to being adopted.

        This obviously wouldn't apply to anything that would be considered a serious safety issue. Maybe even have a policy for "safety bulletins", which can take effect immediately, but aren't automatically a "rule" until they go through the official rule process. Meaning it is only good until the next rulebook comes out. Maybe I'm over thinking it a bit...

        I think part of the issue with the windshield rule is that a rule was proposed, then the rules committee researched and proposed a rule with different wording and specific measurements...which was then adopted by the board without first going back out for feedback. There is a slight feeling that the rule was created and passed without letting us voice our opinions first (even if that wasn't intentional or accidental).
        Last edited by sureshot007; 02-20-2017, 01:44 PM.
        Jim Perrin
        WNY Region
        NEDIV RX Steward

        Comment


        • #19
          What I am saying is, if the intent is "visibility", then the "crack must not extend to edge" makes zero sense. A single crack at the edge will not be in the field of vision.

          Furthermore, a crack that does not extend to the edge is always due to a small impact, and these are never line cracks. You can't crack glass in the middle like that without it extending to the edge . A line crack always extends to at least one edge, a crack in the middle of the windshield is an eggshell/spiderweb style crack.

          In short, that rule appears to have a little bit of leeway but in practice, that allowed leeway is so improbable that it could be said to never exist, and the rationale for said leeway makes zero sense. Nothing about it passes the sniff test at all.
          Last edited by Pete; 02-22-2017, 02:12 PM.
          '84 RX-7 #9 Mod Rear
          '81 RX-7 #74 Prepared Rear
          '06 S60R #588
          '86 Quantum Syncro #34 Mod AWD

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by sureshot007 View Post
            From what I understand, the windshield rule isn't going away.
            Where did you get this? The RXB put it in place, the RXB can remove it if so desired. The only argument that can prevent that is "Risk Management says so.".

            Jay W

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by sureshot007 View Post
              I'm assuming the underlined part is what you want added?
              The rule says "rear of the driver", not "rear of the car". As I read it, side exhausts are already allowed, so long as they exit behind the driver (as is the rule in ax).
              I am using the exact lingo from the Solo rules (adding the noise limit part though). But this wording implies that "to the side" ANYWHERE on the side... In Solo I guess it depends if your class allows it or not. But the Safety rule lists behind the driver OR to the side. Not having to be done in conjunction. This would allow us to run side exhausts in front of the driver

              Comment


              • #22
                I am wanting to get back into rallycross after many years, and was surprised to find that Solo Street/Stock rules and Rallycross Stock rules differ in 2 pretty major ways. I would propose:

                1. Allow +/- 1" diameter wheels in stock class as solo does.
                Rationale: Expands tire options for many cars, allows modern cars with big wheels and rubber band tires to downsize to get more sidewall and durability, lowers cost and barrier to entry as smaller wheels/tires are cheaper. (I do not think width changes from stock should be allowed.)

                2. Allow front OR rear sway bar in stock class as solo does.
                Rationale: Most modern cars these days have an adequate front sway bar that provides a safe amount of roll resistance for performance driving. A rear sway bar upgrade is practically necessary for most cars for autocross, though perhaps less beneficial on loose surfaces. I would argue that at the least, this rule should be equalized with solo rules to make it easier for people to participate in both types of events.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by tronic View Post
                  I am wanting to get back into rallycross after many years, and was surprised to find that Solo Street/Stock rules and Rallycross Stock rules differ in 2 pretty major ways. I would propose:

                  1. Allow +/- 1" diameter wheels in stock class as solo does.
                  Rationale: Expands tire options for many cars, allows modern cars with big wheels and rubber band tires to downsize to get more sidewall and durability, lowers cost and barrier to entry as smaller wheels/tires are cheaper. (I do not think width changes from stock should be allowed.)

                  2. Allow front OR rear sway bar in stock class as solo does.
                  Rationale: Most modern cars these days have an adequate front sway bar that provides a safe amount of roll resistance for performance driving. A rear sway bar upgrade is practically necessary for most cars for autocross, though perhaps less beneficial on loose surfaces. I would argue that at the least, this rule should be equalized with solo rules to make it easier for people to participate in both types of events.
                  In the past we have had rules that were founded on solo concepts that affected critical elements to our classing system. These were put in place to encourage "cross-over" from solo. But we never saw any national growth based on those rule changes. The front sway bar rule was put into place based on those concepts. So using the solo edge for rule changes in RallyCross can be a tough card to play. (But I used it in my suggestion this year). But when it comes to wheels and tires it gets tricky. Most large diameter wheeled cars these days come with really big brakes too. Some don't... So some can use that type of diameter change while others can't due to caliper intrusion. It becomes a wild hair ball really. Most feel that "stock is stock" ... I have been wanting aftermarket radiators and oil coolers in stock for years cause I feel they are like skid plates for engines... But most don't agree... Good luck but RallyCross isn't solo and crossover isn't a real number changed for us...

                  My solo reference in my rule suggestion was used to illustrate how safety wasn't a concern for my reference. But that was about it.

                  Cheers

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tronic View Post
                    I am wanting to get back into rallycross after many years, and was surprised to find that Solo Street/Stock rules and Rallycross Stock rules differ in 2 pretty major ways. I would propose:

                    1. Allow +/- 1" diameter wheels in stock class as solo does.
                    Rationale: Expands tire options for many cars, allows modern cars with big wheels and rubber band tires to downsize to get more sidewall and durability, lowers cost and barrier to entry as smaller wheels/tires are cheaper. (I do not think width changes from stock should be allowed.)

                    2. Allow front OR rear sway bar in stock class as solo does.
                    Rationale: Most modern cars these days have an adequate front sway bar that provides a safe amount of roll resistance for performance driving. A rear sway bar upgrade is practically necessary for most cars for autocross, though perhaps less beneficial on loose surfaces. I would argue that at the least, this rule should be equalized with solo rules to make it easier for people to participate in both types of events.
                    Alignment with Solo is a tough sell, because although we both dodge cones on a course negotiated by one driver at a time, there are some real and fundamental differences. That having been said, there is serious merit to both of these proposals from a purely RallyCross competition standpoint.

                    I lobbied for a +/- 1" rule last year, albeit unsuccessfully, and I'm willing to argue the case again this year. I have a FocusSVT, so I understand the challenge of finding rims that fit over big brakes, but I also have a FiestaST which has ridiculously large 17" rims fitted with 205/40/17 tires. The stock, street-going, configuration of the FiestaST is not unlike many others appearing on today's market: big rims and a thin strip of tire. These are completely unusable during the winter and many that I know, including myself, opt for smaller diameter rims simply to fit sensible winter tires on the car for cold-weather driving. If the remainder of the car is completely stock, and the only modification is to use a one-size-down rim to accommodate a sensible-sized winter tire that would be the exact configuration desired for safe street driving, then I don't see how it would violate the intent of the Stock class.

                    On the swaybar issue, I've never understood why the allowance was specific to the front bar rather than either front or rear depending upon the needs of the car. It can't be a cost issue since most rear bars are cheaper than most front bars. What is the logic to a front-only rule?
                    Assoc Editor/Photographer Formula1Blog.com
                    Photographer/Co-Owner Patterson Prints, LLP

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      We really need to talk about the studded tires issue. Things are getting absurd out there and we need to lay down some rules about it.

                      DOT studs don't do much until they are on a hard surface such as ice. They don't even stick out of the tire. In the rules they are allowed if ice and snow are present. And that is the only time it is possible for them to give an advantage of some sorts.

                      I do think people really know what or how a DOT studs works and they just envision the WRC type studs.

                      I like Aaron's idea to move the rule to the safety section so it blankets all classes. But I feel it should always allow DOT studs at all events. They just don't make a difference until the snow or ice...(which they are allowed at). Sourcing tires is a big part of the affordable edge of the sport. So getting a used set of a snow tires is nice... But if they are studded makes for a complication for the competitor. The rule needs to blanket all classes and only allow US DOT approved studs in an event anytime of year. Making this stud issue limited and not weather based.

                      a proper DOT stud will not stick out of the tread on a resting tire. We could make this part of the rule that studs cannot be felt protruding from the tire tread. That should take away the ability for people to stick in over length DOT studs to try and make some claw type tire and would be more catering to the cheaper dot snow set I think this rule would cater too.

                      "US DOT studded tires are permitted at
                      all events. US DOT studs must not protrude from the tread surface Studded tires may not be homemade
                      using bolts or screws.Only street-legalstuds are allowed.
                      ​​​​​​​
                      A video about studded tires.
                      https://youtu.be/KHbesH6B5QI

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I would like to submit for consideration, that glass sunroof panels may be replaced with fiberglass panels; not only sheet metal. I submit before those interested the email thread between myself and the SCCA committee members which have so far been privy to the conversation and request. Please feel free to comment as to your thoughts on my opinions. Thank you.


                        Hi, Daniel. Following up on your questions regarding replacement of a glass sunroof/moonroof. The RallyCross Rules Committee reviewed your questions and here is the response:
                        1. In Modified classes, a sunroof/moonroof panel--whether metal or glass--may only be replaced with a metal panel. Fiberglass or composite replacement panels are not permitted under the current rules.
                        2. If you replace the glass sunroof with a sheet metal panel, you may install a roof vent in the replacement panel.
                        3. If you replace the sunroof with a sheet metal panel, you can remove the associated sunroof hardware (tracks, latches, motors, etc.) that are bolted to the roof structure. Any welded components are considerd part of the roof structure and may not be removed.

                        Let me know if you have any additional questions. Also, you are welcome to submit rule change proposals on this topic on the SCCA RallyCross forums here:

                        https://www.sccarallycross.com/forum...submit-em-here

                        Regards,

                        Keith Lightfoot
                        Rules Committee Chair



                        Gentleman;

                        My name is Daniel L. Carradini, and I am writing you today in regards to clarification, and possible application to rule change; regarding Modified Class RallyCross, within the SCCA guidelines. My aim is not to step around existing ruling, but to clarify/modify for the outcome of increased safety, and ease of application.


                        In regards to my particular question, I am looking for a ruling on the replacement of glass "moonroof" sunroof panels, with a panel made from reinforced fiberglass. Personally, this is for two separate reasons.


                        1) The safety of a glass (although it tempered), panel overhead, in the event of an accident causing breakage or intrusion of foreign object.

                        2) Modification of said panel (tempered glass) for a roof vent, for introduction of clean air into the cockpit.


                        In regards to point one;

                        I have spoken with my local chairman and head tech inspector, and from these discussions along with my own experience in RX, Auto X, and ITB; have decided against Carbon Fiber as an application. Due to its ability to send shards upon breakage due to its brittleness, I believe it is no more safe than the original tempered glass.


                        In the instance of vehicles which only came with a glass roof option (like my VW GTI), there is not the ability to simply replace the panel with a metal OEM equivalent.

                        I feel that a safe and structurally sound replacement would be a panel made of fiberglass. I have made a test panel for my car; and a panel the thickness of the tempered glass is still flexible enough to match the curvature of the roof panel, and is many times thicker than the steel of the roof panel.

                        My plan would be to remove the sunroof and all associated hardware/tracks/assemblages; and then bond in the fiberglass panel using the same adhesive used to bond in windshields. After that has cured, I would weld in tabsto the underside of the roof panel, and secure the fiberglass panel in a secondary manner with rivets through the fiberglass and into the metal tabs. If it helps, visualize the tabs used in road racing as safety measures to hold in front and rear windows.



                        Mr. Charles Wright suggested keeping the sunroof tracks, and associated hardware (sans motor - not required), and bonding the fiberglass panel to the existing tracks, in a manner as the tempered glass panel - as this would follow along the lines of the rules as they are currently written.


                        In regards to point two:

                        To install a roof vent; either a hole needs to be cut into the factory metal sunroof panel, or into the metal roof panel itself. In the latter, I feel like structure is being weakened, and right at the top of the windshield surround, where it is needed most in the event of an accident.

                        I feel it would be much safer cutting in further back, in the middle of a sunroof replacement panel (in this case, fiberglass), and leaving the factory roof panel un-modified between the forward leading edge of the sunroof, and the top of the windshield.


                        As fiberglass is accepted in "factory hardtops", such as the Mazda Miata, Honda S2000, or Porsche Boxster; I see no reason that it would not be acceptable to the RXB as a replacement for a sunroof panel; as long as the remainder of the OEM roof panel is not modified in any way, except for as needed to the attachment of said panel.

                        I appreciate any and all feedback, and look forward to a ruling.


                        Thank you for your time, gentlemen.

                        Sincerely;


                        Daniel L. Carradini

                        SCCA # 500047

                        Bad Co. Racing

                        444 MF



                        Charles;

                        Chris;


                        Thank you gentleman. I will write up a specific and detailed request, and send to all parties mentioned. I appreciate the insight.



                        Rule 3.3.E.3.h says sunroof panels MAY be replaced with sheetmetal of the same thickness. I could interpret this rule such that it applies if you are removing everything that goes with it as well. Such as the tracks, motor, and whatever else makes a sunroof work.

                        Rule 3.3.E.3.b says the body must be made of a fire resistant material. This looks like there is some flexibility here. The roof is certainly part of the body.

                        Rule 3.3.E.3.d also says that sunroofs do not have to function as originally intended.


                        If the '05 GTI only came with a glass sunroof, I could certainly understand not wanting to have that on my car. If Daniel is going to make a new fiberglass panel to simply replace the glass one I would certainly see that as a safety improvement to the car.


                        So here is my opinion:

                        1. If everything related to the sunroof is going to be removed - you have to put sheetmetal back.

                        2. If you're making a panel to replace the glass one - I would say that you could do that with fiberglass provided the support structure for that panel is still in place. Also, since it doesn't have to work, the motor to operate it could be removed.


                        Please note that the entire rule section 3.3.E is not a mandatory rule. Regions can adjust them as necessary.


                        This is a good question. A definitive answer would have to come from the RXB. Send rule interpretation requests to [email protected]. I would not expect approval to simply fiberglass over the hole in a roof as the rule is pretty clear in that regard. I would include any existing rules on why you think this might be legal.


                        Regards,

                        Charles


                        Charles:
                        The car is in Modified FWD, and it is a 2005 Volkswagen GTI. The current ruling stands as requiring a metal plate at least the same thickness as the factory roof. Daniel works for a marine boat company and wanted to know if it would be possible to get approved to use a reinforced fiberglass panel instead of strictly metal.

                        Thanks in advance...
                        Christopher Pinkert
                        Chairman, CFR SCCA RallyCross
                        Cell # (407) 349-7841

                        Daniel:
                        As mentioned, below are representatives of the RallyCross program at the national level. If you want to ask for approval of using a fiberglass panel in pace of a glass sunroof, these would be the guys to get in touch with. AS you can see, I have also CC'd Charles Wright on here as he is our steward for the southeast division.
                        Let me know if you need anything additional.

                        Howard Duncan, [email protected] -- Senior Director, Rally/Solo
                        Doug Gill, [email protected] -- Rally/Solo Competition Manager
                        Brian Harmer, [email protected] -- Rally/Solo Program Manager

                        --
                        Thanks in advance...
                        Christopher Pinkert
                        Chairman, CFR SCCA RallyCross
                        Cell # (407) 349-7841

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JOlschewski View Post
                          In the past we have had rules that were founded on solo concepts that affected critical elements to our classing system. These were put in place to encourage "cross-over" from solo. But we never saw any national growth based on those rule changes. The front sway bar rule was put into place based on those concepts. So using the solo edge for rule changes in RallyCross can be a tough card to play. (But I used it in my suggestion this year). But when it comes to wheels and tires it gets tricky. Most large diameter wheeled cars these days come with really big brakes too. Some don't... So some can use that type of diameter change while others can't due to caliper intrusion. It becomes a wild hair ball really. Most feel that "stock is stock" ... I have been wanting aftermarket radiators and oil coolers in stock for years cause I feel they are like skid plates for engines... But most don't agree... Good luck but RallyCross isn't solo and crossover isn't a real number changed for us...

                          My solo reference in my rule suggestion was used to illustrate how safety wasn't a concern for my reference. But that was about it.

                          Cheers
                          I would argue that just because you didn't see any national growth based on those changes doesn't mean there wasn't any. There's at least 1 person right here who'd be more likely to attend rallycross events in the future if I could run the same car in Solo Street(formerly known as Stock) class as RallyCross Stock class.

                          On the point about some cars can use a change while some can't being a reason to refuse an allowance - I can see that being a valid point if there were a *performance* benefit, but there is no performance benefit to smaller diameter wheels other than the potential to lose 1-2lbs IF you go for an expensive option like the Enkei RPF1. (I could get 18" RPF1's that weigh 17lbs, which is what most reasonably priced under $175/ea lightweight 17" wheels weigh, for my application). This allowance is to increase durability and ride comfort more than anything. I don't run 18" 40-series tires on the street because it's too harsh.
                          Beyond that, there are plenty of allowances that some cars can use that others can't that DO provide a performance benefit, even in stock class: availability of front sway bar options, tire sizes on stock wheels, and replacement shocks vary quite a bit.

                          BTW, skid plates in stock class look legal to me as of 2017. See page 4: http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files...pdf?1485358129


                          Originally posted by xorpheous View Post

                          Alignment with Solo is a tough sell, because although we both dodge cones on a course negotiated by one driver at a time, there are some real and fundamental differences. That having been said, there is serious merit to both of these proposals from a purely RallyCross competition standpoint.

                          I lobbied for a +/- 1" rule last year, albeit unsuccessfully, and I'm willing to argue the case again this year. I have a FocusSVT, so I understand the challenge of finding rims that fit over big brakes, but I also have a FiestaST which has ridiculously large 17" rims fitted with 205/40/17 tires. The stock, street-going, configuration of the FiestaST is not unlike many others appearing on today's market: big rims and a thin strip of tire. These are completely unusable during the winter and many that I know, including myself, opt for smaller diameter rims simply to fit sensible winter tires on the car for cold-weather driving. If the remainder of the car is completely stock, and the only modification is to use a one-size-down rim to accommodate a sensible-sized winter tire that would be the exact configuration desired for safe street driving, then I don't see how it would violate the intent of the Stock class.

                          On the swaybar issue, I've never understood why the allowance was specific to the front bar rather than either front or rear depending upon the needs of the car. It can't be a cost issue since most rear bars are cheaper than most front bars. What is the logic to a front-only rule?
                          It's my understanding that front sway bar allowances were made in stock classes because historically, a lot of cars had really excessive and unsafe body roll characteristics. A front bar is an easy bandaid for that. Nowdays, a lot of sportier cars are designed to handle more "flat" out of the box and already have bigger front bars and sometimes rear as well. Solo rules were updated years ago to allow a front OR rear bar for this reason - consideration that most modern cars didn't need the front bar at all, but to get any kind of rotation you needed a rear bar to dial out excessive factory intended understeer.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tronic View Post
                            I would argue that just because you didn't see any national growth based on those changes doesn't mean there wasn't any. There's at least 1 person right here who'd be more likely to attend rallycross events in the future if I could run the same car in Solo Street(formerly known as Stock) class as RallyCross Stock class.

                            On the point about some cars can use a change while some can't being a reason to refuse an allowance - I can see that being a valid point if there were a *performance* benefit, but there is no performance benefit to smaller diameter wheels other than the potential to lose 1-2lbs IF you go for an expensive option like the Enkei RPF1. (I could get 18" RPF1's that weigh 17lbs, which is what most reasonably priced under $175/ea lightweight 17" wheels weigh, for my application). This allowance is to increase durability and ride comfort more than anything. I don't run 18" 40-series tires on the street because it's too harsh.
                            Beyond that, there are plenty of allowances that some cars can use that others can't that DO provide a performance benefit, even in stock class: availability of front sway bar options, tire sizes on stock wheels, and replacement shocks vary quite a bit.

                            BTW, skid plates in stock class look legal to me as of 2017. See page 4: http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files...pdf?1485358129



                            It's my understanding that front sway bar allowances were made in stock classes because historically, a lot of cars had really excessive and unsafe body roll characteristics. A front bar is an easy bandaid for that. Nowdays, a lot of sportier cars are designed to handle more "flat" out of the box and already have bigger front bars and sometimes rear as well. Solo rules were updated years ago to allow a front OR rear bar for this reason - consideration that most modern cars didn't need the front bar at all, but to get any kind of rotation you needed a rear bar to dial out excessive factory intended understeer.
                            Your "understanding" is very wrong... Sorry. But it is. Sway bar rule was pushed by a member in a region that had a few interested in crossover. It was a struggle for the RallyCross community to accept it when proposed and has taken a step away from stock is stock... The small amount of regional growth in one region never transferred to more attendance at divisional or national events by the crossover crowd. There isn't a real demand for it.
                            ​​​​
                            the wheel size issue isn't about weight and such. It is about tire sidewall height... We like taller tires to take the bumps and hits.

                            And look back and read my skid plate comment... I was talking about radiators and oil coolers. I made an analogy to skid plates.

                            Skid plates have been legal in Stock class for over a decade... (I know cause I have been here longer than that)

                            Go play in Prepared with your sway bar modifications... You can run any wheel and have fun. In prepared front in Nebraska we had a car running snow tires win the national championship... Just race and don't stress the rules. We don't change stock class all that much. Wouldn't recommend you holding your breath on those ones... But the rules commit has taken note of your proposal I am sure.

                            Good luck.

                            Jon Olschewski
                            Utah Region


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Jon, he's right about the history... the reason Stock class in SOLO has an allowance for front bars was that some cars in the 70s were dangerous without one.
                              '84 RX-7 #9 Mod Rear
                              '81 RX-7 #74 Prepared Rear
                              '06 S60R #588
                              '86 Quantum Syncro #34 Mod AWD

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RallyKeith View Post
                                There is a discussion currently on car swapping during an event. In the spirit of fairness to all I propose the following as the basis for addition to the 2018 rules. This would be a general rule and not specific to regional or national competition.
                                1. Entry for an event is defined as the combination of car and driver.
                                2. If any competitor cannot complete a run as entered in the event, they will receive a bogey time
                                  1. Bogey time is equal to the slowest time for the missed run for the class of the entry, plus 10 seconds
                                    1. Example – If Joe in MA misses the fourth run of the day, Joe would get the slowest time out of all the MA times for the 4th run, plus 10 second.
                                  2. Any on course event that results in a safety incident form, and prevents the competitor from continuing, should result in termination of competition for that competitor.
                                3. If a competitor wishes to continue competition in a vehicle other than the one entered in, a new scoring entry must be created for that vehicle.
                                  1. All runs up to the run where the new entry is added will be given bogey times as described above
                                  2. Competitors should not be charged for the new entry.

                                Respectfully submitted
                                Keith Kennedy
                                Blue Mountain Region RallyCross Safety Steward
                                I don't know about this. Locally car swapping happens somewhat regularly and is seen more as a friendly gesture than anything else. Usually a car breaks and someone in the same class let's the poor driver codrive their car. As long as the car is still legal for the class then we've always been cool with it. I suppose it could result in someone starting the day in a beater Subaru and ending it in an evo but ultimately it doesn't matter imo.
                                Max Lawson
                                2006 Mitsubishi Evo IX MR
                                National Champion 2015 PA
                                2nd Place 2016 MA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X