SCCA.com Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home->SCCA Rally->SCCA RallyCross
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Current draft of changes for 2009 rules
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Current draft of changes for 2009 rules

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Message
mayhem83 View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: July.15.2004
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mayhem83 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Current draft of changes for 2009 rules
    Posted: May.02.2008 at 11:38pm

Here are the proposed rule changes for the 2009 RallyCross rules.  The RXB appreciates the time and effort of all the members that have submitted comments and the time that the rules committee has spent on this layer of the rules change process.

Per the rules change timeline as posted at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=6182&PN=1 , we are ahead of schedule and now offer this draft two weeks early.  We will accept member comment on this draft intil June 15, 2008.

Please post all comments in this thread to keep discussion in one place.  Please do not use the previous threads.  I am going to ask that those older threads be closed (not deleted) so we can keep the discussion on topic with the current proposed changes as opposed to the raw rules change requests as submitted by the members.

Enough with the preamble, here they are!

Scoring

 

5.2.E The method of scoring Regional Rallycross events (all runs, dropping one or more runs, fastest run only, etc.) shall be posted and available to all competitors. Additionally, this information must be included in the supplementary regulations submitted with the sanction application (Article 5.6).  National and Divisional RallyCross events must use a cumulative scoring method with no dropped runs.

 

Stock Category

 

6.2.C.2.d  Tires must be the original size plus/minus 20mm cross section and 5% aspect ratio.  (For example, a car that came equipped with a 205/55/16 can run cross section from 185 to 225 and aspect ratio from 50 to 60.  This also eliminates the tread gap rule.)

 

6.2.C.13  Shocks/dampers may be replaced with OEM or aftermarket replacement units intended for the specific year make and model used. The stock spring must be used as it was on the OEM unit. The spring perch must be factory welded to the damper or use the exact attachment method and position as OEM. Adjustable dampers are only allowed if the OEM unit was adjustable and must retain the same number of adjustments or fewer as OEM.  Remote reservoir shocks are only allowed if they are exact OEM units.  (The change is adding “and position” to the third sentence)

 

6.2.C.14 The front sway bar may be replaced or removed.  A replacement front sway bar may serve no other purpose than originally intended by the vehicle manufacturer.  In the case where the front sway bar is also a suspension locating link, stock geometry and methods of attachment must be maintained.

 

Prepared Category

 

Delete 6.2.D.4.d in it’s entirety.  (This allows prepared category vehicles to remove exhaust catalysts)

 

6.2.D.14 On carburetor equipped cars, jets, accelerator pumps, power valves, metering rods, vacuum secondary and metering springs may be replaced.  Removal of choke plates, linkage and shafts is allowed.  No machining allowed of any carb component.

 

6.2.D.15 Vehicles may substitute one differential with a mechanically governed limited slip or locking unit of an alternate type. This includes spools and welded stock differentials. This does not allow the use of a differential with external controls (electronic or otherwise) to regulate slip or locking. Differentials must be contained in a stock unmodified housing/third member with stock or optional ring and pinion ratios available for the specific model, body, and year of the vehicle only. 4wd vehicles may not substitute more than one differential with an alternate type.

 

6.2.D.16 Batteries may be substituted with any type.  Relocation of the battery or batteries within the engine compartment or trunk area/luggage compartment behind the rearmost seats is permitted.  Longer battery cables may be substituted to permit relocation and holes may be drilled to accommodate mounting of the battery and cables.

 

6.2.D.17  Accessory drive pulleys and belts may be replaced.

 

Modified Category

 

6.2.E.6  Side and rear windows may be removed or replaced with Lexan or equivalent.  Windshield may be replaced with Lexan or equivalent with addition of a full roll cage built to SCCA Improved Touring specifications or better.

 

6.2.E.10 The shape of the body must remain recognizable as that of the manufacturer’s make and model. The body must be made of a fire resistant material. Doors, hoods, trunk lids, sunroofs, hatchbacks, etc. need not function as originally designed. Bumpers, grilles, lights, glass, and trim may be removed. Side mirrors and tail/stop lights are not required.  Any edges created by these modifications that the driver or passenger may contact must be properly insulated to prevent injury. Roof panels must be metal of at least the same thickness as original. Sunroof panels may be replaced with sheet metal of at least the same thickness as an original roof skin without sunroof. Inner roof structure may only be modified with addition of a full roll cage built to SCCA Improved Touring specifications or better.

 

6.2.E.14 - Any fuel system may be used provided gasoline or diesel fuel is used.  Any NON-STOCK fuel cell, filter or pump located in the passenger compartment must be shielded by a metal bulkhead. Any fuel lines running through the passenger compartment must be of metal or metal braided construction.

 

Changes NOT recommended at this time.

Stock

6.2.C.13; Allow double adjustable dampers.  Not recommended based on cost and class philosophy

6.2.C.15 - Paint is free. Graphics may be added.  Not recommended as this is already covered by 6.2.C.5 .

Prepared

6.2.D.14 - Fasteners are free.  Not recommended as this is covered by 6.2.B.

 

Mark Utecht
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Josh View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: February.20.2008
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Points: 178
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.02.2008 at 11:51pm
Those all look great to me. I love what you did with the scoring rule. The stock class tire rule changes will make a lot of people happy, and I like the addition of the size limits.

Looks like a nicely thought out and implemented round of updates to me. Thanks to the RXB for all of their work on this. 
Back to Top
MikeMalsed View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: November.16.2005
Location: Southern California
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeMalsed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 12:12am
Quote 6.2.C.2.d  Tires must be the original size plus/minus 20mm cross section and 5% aspect ratio.  (For example, a car that came equipped with a 205/55/16 can run cross section from 185 to 225 and aspect ratio from 50 to 60.  This also eliminates the tread gap rule.)


Two things:

First - a narrower tire (and this would allow a 3/4" narrower tire) gives a distinct advantage over stock width. I'd restrict it to a much less of a margin.

This needs to be reconciled with .12 -
Quote Wheels must be of the same diameter and width as the OEM wheel.


Second, are you restricting any type of tire, including Mudders and light Truck tires? We've got a guy who's put SUV tires on his WRX Wagon, with very little modification (MIGHT. . .MIGHT be legal for SCCA Stock. . .don't know.) This leaves it waaay too open.

Rest of stock - looks good.

Prepared - I honestly believe that 6.2.D.15 violates what you described to me as the intent of Prepared. True - an LSD is a bolt-on piece, but it's a pretty significant bolt-on piece that is well out of reach of most racers. Addition of an LSD (which is what this is) decreases the differentiation between RP and RM. This is more of a change than putting in lexan windows or getting rid of the sunroof or 90% of the things that would put you in RM. . .

shoot - it's HUGELY more than crash-bolts, which are not allowed in Prepared! Why allow someone to change the very characteristic of the car but not to adjust their camber?

Modified

I love 6.2.E.10. :D It just makes me chuckle.


Ummm, Mark - what would you do if an electric car came to race? Or a H2 Fuel Cell car? I haven't seen one yet, but restricting to Gasoline or Diesel (what about E85 - technically, it's not really Gas anymore, it's an Ethanol blend. . .or if I run Vegetable Oil - greasecar.com swap - worth the money. It's going in my Ram! :D ) might be short-sighted and "anti-green", you know? Just a thought. Restricting the fuel does mean that my buddy in his old Merc can't run in SCCA events. We've had stranger vehicles!
It's more fun being Dirty!
SoPac RxSS
Back to Top
mayhem83 View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: July.15.2004
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mayhem83 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 12:28am

Mike,

Regarding the crash bolts, we have had one proposal for the use of crash bolts in all classes.  We have not had a request limited to Prepared and Mod.  Please feel free to submit your proposal to RXB@SCCA.com .

The fuel rule in modified applies only to modified.  IF you use an alternate fuel system in modified, it must be gasoline or diesel.  If you have a stock fuel system in any class, you can run whatever fuel the manufacturer specifies. 

I am not an expert in alternative fuels and I'm not sure we can count on the general rallycross public to know any additional safety considerations for these alternative fuels.  Based on that, the RXB feels we should only allow fuel systems that are more well known where we are more conditioned to the safety concerns of those fuels.  That being said, of course, anyone can submit a suggestion for a rule change to allow alternative fuels for the rules committee and RXB to consider.

Mark Utecht
Back to Top
breadbox View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: November.04.2006
Location: Camas, WA
Points: 39
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote breadbox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 12:48am
I like what I see, no complaints here.  
84 VW Rabbit GTI (G2 Rally Car)
83 VW Rabbit GTI
Back to Top
loner View Drop Down
Senior
Senior
Avatar

Joined: June.24.2006
Location: Livonia, MI
Points: 191
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote loner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 1:09am
Originally posted by MikeMalsed MikeMalsed wrote:


Second, are you restricting any type of tire, including Mudders and light Truck tires? We've got a guy who's put SUV tires on his WRX Wagon, with very little modification (MIGHT. . .MIGHT be legal for SCCA Stock. . .don't know.) This leaves it waaay too open.


Having spent a lot of time looking at dinky aggressive mudder type tires I am pretty sure that they would fall afoul of OEM  width and section height limits  in stock class for 15" and under rims and can virtually guarantee they do for 16"+ rims.  Also any mods to the wheel well or fender liner aren't allowed so that should help too.

Any rule that makes stock trucks run in anything but stock would be worse than what is proposed IMHO.



Edited by loner
Chris Lanctot
210 PR Toyota Tacoma
Back to Top
loner View Drop Down
Senior
Senior
Avatar

Joined: June.24.2006
Location: Livonia, MI
Points: 191
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote loner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 1:33am
"6.2.E.10 ...The body must be made of a fire resistant material."

Not that I want to advocate the body be made of gasoline soaked rags , but doesn't this eliminate plastic and fiberglass which some cars  are from the get go anyway?

No fiberglass hatches, fenders or Saturns allowed?  What is the body vs just "parts" exactly?


Edited by loner
Chris Lanctot
210 PR Toyota Tacoma
Back to Top
MikeMalsed View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: November.16.2005
Location: Southern California
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeMalsed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 1:54am
Originally posted by loner loner wrote:

Originally posted by MikeMalsed MikeMalsed wrote:


Second, are you restricting any type of tire, including Mudders and light Truck tires? We've got a guy who's put SUV tires on his WRX Wagon, with very little modification (MIGHT. . .MIGHT be legal for SCCA Stock. . .don't know.) This leaves it waaay too open.


Having spent a lot of time looking at dinky aggressive mudder type tires I am pretty sure that they would fall afoul of OEM  width and section height limits  in stock class for 15" and under rims and can virtually guarantee they do for 16"+ rims.  Also any mods to the wheel well or fender liner aren't allowed so that should help too.

Any rule that makes stock trucks run in anything but stock would be worse than what is proposed IMHO.



Not disagreeing with you - but trucks can get street type tires - remember my discussion in a now "forbidden" thread.

You can easily get extremely aggressive truck tires that fall within OEM - let's say a 2000 Ford Ranger XL. OEM is 225/70-15, according to Tirerack. Let's look at the General Grabber AT/2 - extremely aggressive tread pattern, listed as On/Off Road All Terrain. Not at all in the same category as a typical car street tire, no? I mean, look at those tread gaps - must be over a half inch!

in fact, you can get a tire that looks like this: in a 225/70-15.

In fact, since the allowance would be up to +/- 20mm, it's even easier - up to a 245. . .

All I did was to search for the tire size and mudder. Plenty of results (some good, some not) came up.


I've been accused of being anti-truck - I'm not. I like trucks - I've got one. But as they can use incredibly aggressive tires in stock or near stock sizes, some limitations need to be placed on them.
It's more fun being Dirty!
SoPac RxSS
Back to Top
MikeMalsed View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: November.16.2005
Location: Southern California
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeMalsed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 2:04am
Originally posted by mayhem83 mayhem83 wrote:

Mike,

Regarding the crash bolts, we have had one proposal for the use of crash bolts in all classes.  We have not had a request limited to Prepared and Mod.  Please feel free to submit your proposal to RXB@SCCA.com .

The fuel rule in modified applies only to modified.  IF you use an alternate fuel system in modified, it must be gasoline or diesel.  If you have a stock fuel system in any class, you can run whatever fuel the manufacturer specifies. 

I am not an expert in alternative fuels and I'm not sure we can count on the general rallycross public to know any additional safety considerations for these alternative fuels.  Based on that, the RXB feels we should only allow fuel systems that are more well known where we are more conditioned to the safety concerns of those fuels.  That being said, of course, anyone can submit a suggestion for a rule change to allow alternative fuels for the rules committee and RXB to consider.



Unfortunately, the thread containing the crash-bolts proposal is gone so I can't look at it.

However, the person proposing the rule is a part of my forum and the rule proposal was published in fast track.
Quote "Deny request to add provision for camber bolts in Rally Prepared. The RxB feels the current provisions for camber adjustment are adequate at this time."


sorry, Mark, that's NOT in all classes, that's in Rally Prepared.

My comment stands.


as to the fuels - I'm not worried about our rallycross public. See, any car that can pass federal crash guidelines should be fine running rallycross. Right? I'm only commenting on your restricting fuels, especially in this day and age.

My example of a vegetable oil powered car, for instance. They do exist and you can get the system from greasecar.com. They're not running on diesel, they're running an even safer fuel - one that you likely use in your kitchen.

My point was why limit fuels? Shoot - why limit it TO fuel powered cars. . . What if I got a Sunbeam or another electric car? Why not?

Heck, if you played your cards right, you could even get Google to sponsor an entire class at Nationals - a Green Class of car. . .except that it would not be legal under the proposed rules.
It's more fun being Dirty!
SoPac RxSS
Back to Top
loner View Drop Down
Senior
Senior
Avatar

Joined: June.24.2006
Location: Livonia, MI
Points: 191
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote loner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 2:41am
Originally posted by MikeMalsed MikeMalsed wrote:


You can easily get extremely aggressive truck tires that fall within OEM - let's say a 2000 Ford Ranger XL. OEM is 225/70-15, according to Tirerack. Let's look at the General Grabber AT/2 - extremely aggressive tread pattern, listed as On/Off Road All Terrain. Not at all in the same category as a typical car street tire, no? I mean, look at those tread gaps - must be over a half inch!


I must admit I was thinking more along the lines of trying to find and shoehorn  27" tires onto a Suby as compared to trucks swapping  for more aggressive tires.  So something to think about.

But I still wonder if it's enough of a difference to overcome the extra weight, crappy handling and crude drivetrains trucks/suv's usually have.  Dunno.  I don't think I have seen trucks dominating against well driven RS's on snows or STi's on anything as of yet.

But if a RS and STi are in the same class I can't see booting a truck with aggro tires to another class especially if it came with those type of tires as OEM. 


Chris Lanctot
210 PR Toyota Tacoma
Back to Top
MR2Race View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: April.14.2007
Location: Dearborn, Mi.
Points: 53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MR2Race Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 8:29am

We may need to define Fire Resistant.

So Tech Inspectors do not try to eliminate composite parts.

Or isolate the Pontiac Fiero Owners

Back to Top
edrach View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: November.04.2006
Location: Bothell, WA
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edrach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 9:06am
I need some time to think about the proposed changes and comment, but fortunately they are not as draconian as I had feared. Thanks to RXB for their time and effort in what is usually a thankless job.
Ed Rachner
Back to Top
mayhem83 View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: July.15.2004
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mayhem83 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 9:47am

Originally posted by MikeMalsed MikeMalsed wrote:

Unfortunately, the thread containing the crash-bolts proposal is gone so I can't look at it.
However, the person proposing the rule is a part of my forum and the rule proposal was published in fast track.
sorry, Mark, that's NOT in all classes, that's in Rally Prepared.
My comment stands.

You are right...and wrong.  The thread is located at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=6161&PN=2 and it did specifiy prepared.  Sorry, I misremembered.  However, that thread does include my opinion that crash bolts are allowed in all classes if the vehicle manufacturer allows the use in the factory shop manual.

Originally posted by MikeMalsed MikeMalsed wrote:

as to the fuels - I'm not worried about our rallycross public. See, any car that can pass federal crash guidelines should be fine running rallycross. Right? I'm only commenting on your restricting fuels, especially in this day and age.
My example of a vegetable oil powered car, for instance. They do exist and you can get the system from greasecar.com. They're not running on diesel, they're running an even safer fuel - one that you likely use in your kitchen.
My point was why limit fuels? Shoot - why limit it TO fuel powered cars. . . What if I got a Sunbeam or another electric car? Why not?
Heck, if you played your cards right, you could even get Google to sponsor an entire class at Nationals - a Green Class of car. . .except that it would not be legal under the proposed rules.

I would be happy to see your proposal.  Please submit it to RXB@SCCA.com .

Mark Utecht
Back to Top
edrach View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: November.04.2006
Location: Bothell, WA
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edrach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 12:32pm
There was a lot of discussion in allowing back-dated parts and such within Prepared.  I'm not sure I'd like to see that in Stock but I'll leave that to those who run Stock.  It would be nice to see it in Prepared since I'm sure some of us who run regional events have already gone there.

Edited by edrach
Ed Rachner
Back to Top
MikeMalsed View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: November.16.2005
Location: Southern California
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeMalsed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by mayhem83 mayhem83 wrote:

I would be happy to see your proposal.  Please submit it to RXB@SCCA.com .


Actually - I'm still discussing what I thought were proposed changes to the rules. . .

Quote 6.2.E.14 - Any fuel system may be used provided gasoline or diesel fuel is used.  Any NON-STOCK fuel cell, filter or pump located in the passenger compartment must be shielded by a metal bulkhead. Any fuel lines running through the passenger compartment must be of metal or metal braided construction.


If this is a proposed change, then my comments are valid.

I'm having fun - are you?


Edited by MikeMalsed
It's more fun being Dirty!
SoPac RxSS
Back to Top
MikeMalsed View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: November.16.2005
Location: Southern California
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MikeMalsed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.03.2008 at 1:50pm
Originally posted by loner loner wrote:

Originally posted by MikeMalsed MikeMalsed wrote:


You can easily get extremely aggressive truck tires that fall within OEM - let's say a 2000 Ford Ranger XL. OEM is 225/70-15, according to Tirerack. Let's look at the General Grabber AT/2 - extremely aggressive tread pattern, listed as On/Off Road All Terrain. Not at all in the same category as a typical car street tire, no? I mean, look at those tread gaps - must be over a half inch!


I must admit I was thinking more along the lines of trying to find and shoehorn  27" tires onto a Suby as compared to trucks swapping  for more aggressive tires.  So something to think about.

But I still wonder if it's enough of a difference to overcome the extra weight, crappy handling and crude drivetrains trucks/suv's usually have.  Dunno.  I don't think I have seen trucks dominating against well driven RS's on snows or STi's on anything as of yet.

But if a RS and STi are in the same class I can't see booting a truck with aggro tires to another class especially if it came with those type of tires as OEM. 


I've not seen a truck come with those type of tires as OEM. Could be wrong - and in a 4WD truck, it might. I sold my 4WD F150 a while ago. :D

However, in 2WD, especially let's say RSR, a truck with those tires is going to be unfair to the MR2's or other RWD vehicles.

Traction is traction.   
It's more fun being Dirty!
SoPac RxSS
Back to Top
Dave468 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: April.28.2008
Location: Portland, OR
Points: 20
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dave468 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.04.2008 at 12:41pm

The Scoring ... that looks great to me.

 

Dave Haworth
Back to Top
WAM74 View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: April.08.2008
Location: CA
Points: 136
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WAM74 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.04.2008 at 8:33pm
Mike, I see my proposal for lexan windshields for modifieds with full roll cages has been modified to "SCCA Improved Touring" spec roll cages. Not argueing the wisdom, but I don't know those specifics. Are they posted on SCCA's website or elsewhere?   Are we going to have to buy a GCR or something every year to know if our RallyX cars are still legal? Will we need to change out our cages, if IT chooses to do so? It's those types of issues that caused me to propose a more generic standard.

Thanx, Bill
Back to Top
mayhem83 View Drop Down
Senior
Senior


Joined: July.15.2004
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mayhem83 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.04.2008 at 11:03pm
The minimum cage specs for Improved Touring have remained unchanged for many years and I would anticipate they will remain unchanged.  If there is a change in the spec, I would expect the RXB to address the issue and determine if the change is necessary for RallyCross at the time.
Mark Utecht
Back to Top
bob martin View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: April.06.2008
Location: Detroit, MI
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bob martin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May.05.2008 at 6:08am

I think you need to rethink not recommending the fastener rule and the paint rule.

Paint: Do you know how much paint weighs? Paint is very heavy. Paint includes baked on sound insulation material on the floor pans of cars. Very heavy stuff. Are you saying that I cannot remove that stuff? Stock paint includes elpo, primer, color and clear coats. How much does this weigh? If I just give it a primer and color coat, are you saying I shouldn't be able to run this car in Modified class? If I have a carbon fiber hood with no paint (and no paintclearly weighs less than factory paint), are you saying I can't run that in Modified class? I think you need to reconsider this non-recommendation as I do not think the rule as written enables the intent of the RX Board.

Fasteners: The manufacturer calls for wheel studs of a certain length specification. Mine are longer. Are you saying I shouldn't be able to run longer wheel studs in Modified class? I also replaced the spring clamp type hose clamps with worm gear types. The manufacturer calls for the spring type. Are you saying that I cannot replace my hose clamps with alternates in Modified class? I have also replaced certain fasteners with wire ties. Wire ties are outside of the manufacturers specifications. I also have added safety wire to a few bolts. That required drilling a hole in the head of the bolt. The manufacturers specification clearly states "no holes" (want to see a blue print from a manufacturer?). Is it the intent of the SCCA to prevent me from increasing the safety of my vehicle by adding safety wire? Some bolts come coated from the factory. Do I have to use an identical coating? I can't use Loctite? Some manufacturers bolts have a captured washer. I replaced some with a bolt and a washer. Clearly out of spec. Are you saying these should be illegal in Modified?

Have I made my point? There are way too many options for "fasteners" to limit us to "manufacturer's specs". Please reconsider this non-recommendation.

Other than that, nice job!

Thanks,

Bob

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down