Photo Gallery of Rhys Millen's New Pontiac Solstice!

[FreeThinker]

Tony, (didnt realize you're foilman) all I can see that's changed is the upper spring perch has been removed since the Penskes are no doubt short stroke and no need to mount them so high.

It also looks like they narrowed the upper and lower control arms for clearance, but the pickup points remain the same or within the 1inch allowed, and more importantly, The pivot axis remains the same even if they swapped which side of the metal tabs the heim joints sit on; they really didnt alter the geometry, just a narrower a-arm. That's all I can see for sure. But the car is only like an inch lower overall (look at the stock Solstice in the pic) anyway so there's no need to get crazy with geometry changes.



As far as Hampton's car, until they enacted the 2006 rules, his car was totally legal as far as I know. But I saw pics of it at Long Beach.... maybe he changed back to stock front subframe???

I really think it's all a bit silly actually, like I said before, this is drifting and I'm not the first guy to say/think that it comes down to the driver a LOT more than the car. If someone wants to drop 5mil on some F1 level car it's still a judged sport, not timed, and the judges always have the handicaps in mind.

I personally would like so see some sort of unlimited Formula spec drifting class allowing even open wheel tube frame cars FWD 4WD FR whatever, 4 wheel steering etc. and really see where the technology can take it.

BTW, I'm the same guy from down at the Ocala events, who almost always ends up talking tech with you (steering angle, rotor hitting LCA)

[Double M Star]

Want to look at mine for comparison?

[my 1 88 u]

Is there any rules against cutting the frame rails?

[soultron]

I tend think no one would have as much of a problem with it if it was
a japanese car or if Orido/Kazama/Tarzan drove it. But since it's a Pontiac and Rhys driving and no one likes him cause he's a crybaby...
I never hear this much flack about Japanese cars breaking rules/bieng inovative.
Think about that Imprezza, how much of that car is stock... I mean really.
It's a performance sport, so you beef up and tune the car.
If it breaks the rules, fine. If they let it through, fine.
All this complaining just leads to more strict rules, more inspections and limited leeway, and you know what that leads to?

EVERYONE DRIVING THE SAME CAR.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT???

I will not attend events with a dozen sheetmetal/tubeframe 240 mock ups.

Besides, I don't compete against any of these people so why should I care?

[CrazyBadger]

I agree with everyone drving the same car, that would be horrible. It might be true that if it was a japanese driver nobody would say anything, idk I dont have any complaints other than what I already said about the power being so high for such a small car...

[MonkeySlide]

I tend think no one would have as much of a problem with it if it was
a japanese car or if Orido/Kazama/Tarzan drove it. But since it's a Pontiac and Rhys driving and no one likes him cause he's a crybaby...
I never hear this much flack about Japanese cars breaking rules/bieng inovative.
Think about that Imprezza, how much of that car is stock... I mean really.
It's a performance sport, so you beef up and tune the car.
If it breaks the rules, fine. If they let it through, fine.
All this complaining just leads to more strict rules, more inspections and limited leeway, and you know what that leads to?

EVERYONE DRIVING THE SAME CAR.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT???

I will not attend events with a dozen sheetmetal/tubeframe 240 mock ups.

Besides, I don't compete against any of these people so why should I care?

AHHHHHHHHHH!!!! ahh ok man ok!! just...just take that away!...ugh *sudder* ahh man...you scared us straight man...wow..ok ..whew...

[TeamRMR]

Pontiac, or whoever they had build the car obviously put a lot of time and money in to it. It's a shame they didn't even bother with the rules, and I'm surprised such a professional effort made this huge,obvious mistake; or more like, showed so much blatant disregard for the rulebook and fellow competitors.

Sorry to spoil your detailed web-photo tech inspection, but the car is 100% legal and was built (mostly by Roush) with the newest rule book in hand. I think that the picture shows it. The mounting points are in the same plain, just an inch closer on each side to each other. We respect FD and their rules and to hear you say that we have "blatant disregard for the rulebook and fellow competitors" is very disheartening and sad. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[foilman]

Sorry to spoil your detailed web-photo tech inspection, but the car is 100% legal and was built (mostly by Roush) with the newest rule book in hand. I think that the picture shows it. The mounting points are in the same plain, just an inch closer on each side to each other. We respect FD and their rules and to hear you say that we have "blatant disregard for the rulebook and fellow competitors" is very disheartening and sad. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Your shock mounts have been moved much more than 1". I don't think the relevant sections of the rulebook have changed (this is from the one currently on the FD site). How does it not violate these parts below?

Eligible Vehicles:

D) Must maintain original OEM unibody or frame structure between front and rear suspension mounting points.

Chassis/Suspension:

A) Uprights/hubs and front cross member and rear sub-frame must remain OEM. Suspension chassis pick/mounting points may not be relocated from original OEM location. Suspension pick up points maybe moved 2 inches from the original location for cars with manufacturing date before 1/90. Suspension pick up points maybe moved 1 inch from the original location for cars with manufacturing date after 1/90.
B) Suspension arms maybe mounted within 1 inch of original location for cars with manufacturing date after 1/90. Suspension arms may be mounted within 2inches for cars with manufacturing date before 1/90

[Double M Star]

Again....

Would you like to look at mine for comparison?

And...
To TEAM RMR...
How many Solstices did you have built?
I remember hearing that there were nearly 50 solstices in the Roush lot a few months ago.

[FreeThinker]

Your shock mounts have been moved much more than 1". I don't think the relevant sections of the rulebook have changed (this is from the one currently on the FD site). How does it not violate these parts below?

Eligible Vehicles:

D) Must maintain original OEM unibody or frame structure between front and rear suspension mounting points.

Chassis/Suspension:

A) Uprights/hubs and front cross member and rear sub-frame must remain OEM. Suspension chassis pick/mounting points may not be relocated from original OEM location. Suspension pick up points maybe moved 2 inches from the original location for cars with manufacturing date before 1/90. Suspension pick up points maybe moved 1 inch from the original location for cars with manufacturing date after 1/90.
B) Suspension arms maybe mounted within 1 inch of original location for cars with manufacturing date after 1/90. Suspension arms may be mounted within 2inches for cars with manufacturing date before 1/90

The shock mount has nothing to do with suspension geometry except on a strut design. They can mount the shock on the roof and use 14 pushrods and cantilevers to actuate it and it's totally legal.

I dont see the misunderstanding.

Also whoever wrote that rulebook is a moron, the grammar in some parts is just hilarious and just in the section you cut and pasted which I have read so many times, the statements contradict each other. pickup points MAY NOT be moved, but then pickup points may be moved 1inch, or may be moved 2in. for '89 and older.

This is all stupid, just go drive the cars already.

[RyanHampton]

I just thought I would throw two cents in there.

Its a funny thing, I am a privateer as far as car preparation and people are complaining about my 36 year old car. My suspension points are located in the stock position, and my engine is mounted in the stock location,
however our subframe is not stock, it is a replacment that is mass produced and available to anyone who wants to buy it over the counter. People who like to use our particular Camaro as a competitive example are whinny little B**ches. Don't worry though, by Chicago we will have a stock subframe with 2" modified mounting points and much longer control arms than we have now, hence even better geometry. I am not even close to competitive aginst factory cars or dollars and everyone uses me as a compairison. I'm flattered.

Thank you,

[foilman]

The shock mount has nothing to do with suspension geometry except on a strut design. They can mount the shock on the roof and use 14 pushrods and cantilevers to actuate it and it's totally legal.

Affecting geometry does not factor in. The rules make no distinction for, or even mention geometry. The shock mount is still a suspension mount, regardless if changing it affects the geometry or not. Don't even try to pretend that springs and shocks are something other than suspension. Suspension mounts on new cars can only be moved 1".

[FreeThinker]

I just thought I would throw two cents in there.

Its a funny thing, I am a privateer as far as car preparation and people are complaining about my 36 year old car. My suspension points are located in the stock position, and my engine is mounted in the stock location,
however our subframe is not stock, it is a replacment that is mass produced and available to anyone who wants to buy it over the counter. People who like to use our particular Camaro as a competitive example are whinny little B**ches. Don't worry though, by Chicago we will have a stock subframe with 2" modified mounting points and much longer control arms than we have now, hence even better geometry. I am not even close to competitive aginst factory cars or dollars and everyone uses me as a compairison. I'm flattered.

Thank you,

My point was that Formula D doesnt enforce their own rules. I know exactly what subframe you have and it doesnt bother me. It's an old car and is hard to be competitive with considering it uses mostly stock geometry.

Like I said before, I'm not a fan of having these rules at all, I say run IndyCar front suspension if you want to, but I think anyone should agree that if they are going to write rules, they should enforce them.

Just one more blow to the credibility of Formula D.




And Tony, you concede that the shock location does not affect suspension geometry, so what are you upset about?

[foilman]

And Tony, you concede that the shock location does not affect suspension geometry, so what are you upset about?

In the basic sense, it's illegal, and we're already falling down the slippery slope. Not cutting up the chassis beyond regulations is a cardinal rule in production car series. General possibilities are illegal weight savings, packaging, and steering geometry. Do you think Roush would have gone through the trouble if it didn't gain them anything?

For this Solstice, I'm not certain, but it sure appears that the huge steering angle would not be possible if the rest of the chassis were still there to block the wheel. Anybody that really knows drifting, knows big steering angle is key.

Obviously the fuel pressure regulator would have to be moved, and possibly the coils... but that's minor stuff. They cut more big chunks of metal off the chassis when they fabbed the new swaybar, though that might not technically be illegal, becuase I haven't seen that chassis THAT close.

Keep in mind, It's not like I was out to get this car... in fact, at first I went looking for info in its defense, but found to the contrary and just kept getting sucked further into the discussion.

[foilman]

Ryan, just so it's clear... I did not bring up the Camaro, only commented when asked about it directly.