Strut Tower Bar

[tdw6974]

Are additional Brace/braces allowed from the strut tower brace back to the fire wall? :unsure:

[zracre]

nope

[lateapex911]

Any strut brace (or "stayrod" as the good book calls it) may only attach (key word) to the stuts, by my interpretation of the rule, as the GCR states "between the top of the strut towers"..

At the ARRCs, I saw some large plates welded to the strut tops, wrapping around and down the sides of the towers, that the strut braces were then bolted to.

There is no provision that I am aware of that limits that attachment type, or size of the stayrod attachment hardware, but item 8 does go on to disallow and reinforcement of suspension pickup and mounting points as a blanket statement. Perhaps I am imposing my idea of the rule and perhaps it's (in my mind) intent, but I was surprised to see such large mounting plates reinforcing the towers at those locations.

Wish I had snapped a picture.

[tdw6974]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 29 2005, 09:23 PM
Any strut brace (or "stayrod" as the good book calls it) may only attach (key word) to the stuts, by my interpretation of the rule, as the GCR states "between the top of the strut towers"..

At the ARRCs, I saw some large plates welded to the strut tops, wrapping around and down the sides of the towers, that the strut braces were then bolted to.

There is no provision that I am aware of that limits that attachment type, or size of the stayrod attachment hardware, but item 8 does go on to disallow and reinforcement of suspension pickup and mounting points as a blanket statement. Perhaps I am imposing my idea of the rule and perhaps it's (in my mind) intent, but I was surprised to see such large mounting plates reinforcing the towers at those locations.

Wish I had snapped a picture.

66978

I have seen one that also goes from the top of the struts to the firewall and of course between the strut tops. I think perhaps back to the firewall "reinforcement of suspension points" would not be allowed. Wish we could get ol Smokey Yunick's take on it :D

[lateapex911]

Thats going to fall, I think, in the same pool as roll cages that have interferance fits with the interiors. As long as it isn't attached, it's fine.

If it is attached, that is to say that if it's other attachments were removed it would remain fastened to the firewall, then it is not legal.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 29 2005, 05:23 PM
Any strut brace (or "stayrod" as the good book calls it) may only attach (key word) to the stuts, by my interpretation of the rule, as the GCR states "between the top of the strut towers"..

At the ARRCs, I saw some large plates welded to the strut tops, wrapping around and down the sides of the towers, that the strut braces were then bolted to.

There is no provision that I am aware of that limits that attachment type, or size of the stayrod attachment hardware, but item 8 does go on to disallow and reinforcement of suspension pickup and mounting points as a blanket statement. Perhaps I am imposing my idea of the rule and perhaps it's (in my mind) intent, but I was surprised to see such large mounting plates reinforcing the towers at those locations.

Wish I had snapped a picture.

66978



Jake,

That's the old 'permitted mods may not perform prohibited functions' rule.

[zracre]

so if someone made a beefy plate with roll bar material bolted to it at the firewall and had it not directly connect it to the strut (.001" clearance at all five points of a square plate attached to the strut tower) it is not connected unless there is chassis deflection....is it allowed? <_<

[lateapex911]

No, the "trick way" IMHO, LOL...is to make the stayrod a triangular affair..with the hypotenuse (sp??) running between the towers and the legs pointing to the firewall, where they have a stiffening plate welded to them, which also mates to, but does not attach to, the firewall.

And there are other ways to do it, which I considered, and would work well on my car, but I think Bill is right, it falls on the wrong side of the "permitted functions" fence.

[ddewhurst]

Guys, read the friken rule. SHALL we insert the word "between" in the GCR Glossary ? The friken rule don&#39;t say the stayrod may go from here to there to here & back again.

This should get something going. ;)

ps: Maybe some of you can&#39;t reach minimum weight because you out read the rules. Your three point stayrod support will weigh maybe three times as much as a legal stayrod. :) :) :P

[charrbq]

There&#39;s a possibility that it could be made legal if the stayrods/strut brace were gusseted completely across the top of the engine in such a fashion as to seal access to the engine without it&#39;s removal. Of course, it would weigh in the vicinity of 300 lbs. I mean, isn&#39;t that what those guys with the Spec Miatas did with their kill switches? Whoops, my bad, those were made illegal! Well, at the right time, with the right tech inspector with a liquor or drug habit...no, I doubt that even that would work. :) :P :D :lol:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 30 2005, 11:25 AM
Guys, read the friken rule. SHALL we insert the word "between" in the GCR Glossary ? The friken rule don&#39;t say the stayrod may go from here to there to here & back again.

This should get something going. ;)

ps: Maybe some of you can&#39;t reach minimum weight because you out read the rules. Your three point stayrod support will weigh maybe three times as much as a legal stayrod. :) :) :P

67041


Remember, a famous IT.com philosopher once said. "If it says you can do it, you bloody well can"....

The rule does not limit they type, the size, the geometry, the design, or the material of the stayrod. So, if the strut top brace goes from one strut to the other, and attaches only to those points, I see nowhere where the rule restricts you from a carbon or aluminum structure, in whatever shape makes you happy.

Happy fabbing!

[ddewhurst]

Jake, my point is happy fabbing (bar or rod/glossary) as long as per the rule the stayrod is BETWEEN the struts which are opposite each other because that&#39;s what the rule bloody well says you can DO. :) Of course one needs to use the glossary for the word stayrod. :o & the friken rule nor the IT.com philosopher say the stayrod CAN touch the firewall because the firewall ain&#39;t BETWEEN the struts.

Happy Winter

ps: Anyone have any knowledge about the for sale 1996 blue Spec Miata #72 in the last SportsCar ?

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 1 2005, 09:12 AM
Jake, my point is happy fabbing (bar or rod/glossary) as long as per the rule the stayrod is BETWEEN the struts which are opposite each other because that&#39;s what the rule bloody well says you can DO. :) Of course one needs to use the glossary for the word stayrod. :o & the friken rule nor the IT.com philosopher say the stayrod CAN touch the firewall because the firewall ain&#39;t BETWEEN the struts.

67113


I&#39;d argue what matters is the attachment points. I think one could also argue that the middle of the firewall is indeed between the strut towers. A bit of a stretch perhaps, and I&#39;d certainly argue that touching the firewall is counter to the intent. But there is no limitation regarding touching the firewall or the stayrod having to be the shortest distance between two points.

That said, IMHO touching the firewall is worthless and the extra material to do so is a waste of material and unneeded extra weight (and at a height that is also a disadvantage). Go ahead and build a XXXL stayrod that weights 20 lbs. Knock yourself out.

[ddewhurst]

***Go ahead and build a XXXL stayrod that weights 20 lbs. Knock yourself out.***

George, being that you quoted me in your above post I presume your response is towards me. Do you think a guy (me) who has a legal ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 that can scale under 2380 pounds with a 200 pound driver would build worthless stuff like a couple of the suggested stayrods ?

ps: From my original post on this subject. "This should get something going. ;) "

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 1 2005, 12:26 PM
***Go ahead and build a XXXL stayrod that weights 20 lbs. Knock yourself out.***

George, being that you quoted me in your above post I presume your response is towards me. Do you think a guy (me) who has a legal ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 that can scale under 2380 pounds with a 200 pound driver would build worthless stuff like a couple of the suggested stayrods ?

ps: From my original post on this subject. "This should get something going. ;) "

67130


Hi David. The first line above that you&#39;re quoting was NOT directed towards you. Sorry if it seemed that way. It was rhetorical in nature. I&#39;d be shocked if you did something like that.

My post before was basically meant to say that I think a good argument could be made that it could be done legally, but why? It would be a net step backwards as I getting the feeling you quite agree.

[lateapex911]

I love playing the devils advocate.....

Ok, so it might be technically legal, but the cost to benefit ratio is suspect.

So.....what if, the cross car roll cage tube happened to run by the firewall on the inside kinda near where the aluminum stayrod structure runs by it?

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 1 2005, 07:46 PM
I love playing the devils advocate.....

Ok, so it might be technically legal, but the cost to benefit ratio is suspect.

So.....what if, the cross car roll cage tube happened to run by the firewall on the inside kinda near where the aluminum stayrod structure runs by it?

67156


You&#39;ve added even more worthless weight.

[ddewhurst]

If I was playing with the devils advocate (or George) ;) I would weld a small flat plate to the cross tube between the cross tube & the firewall with a couple dowels pressed in the plate (don&#39;t want to weld the pins or dowels because thE weld would be to heavy) & sticking through a couple OEM holes in the firewall. Then I would weld a plate with matching dowel holes (honeymoon fit) to the stayrod which finds it&#39;s way to the firewall.

Come on Trump :) :D

[Doc Bro]

Originally posted by Geo@Dec 2 2005, 03:32 AM
You&#39;ve added even more worthless weight.

67161



That is hilarious!!!! You really gave me a chuckle...Very witty!!
Thanks I needed that this AM
Rob

[joeg]

I like it Dave.

You could even make the Dowels a press fit, requiring one side to be heated and the other super-chilled to effect mating.

Intersting...

[tderonne]

Nope, roll cage must be inside the passenger compartment.

But.

Foot protection bars. I sit on the left side of the car. One foot protection brace near my left foot, one near my right (right in the center of the dash). I&#39;m trying to protect my feet, not the passenger&#39;s. In the middle of the dash makes a lot of sense, don&#39;t want that nasty engine/trans coming through the firewall, right?

[Knestis]

"C. The forward part of the cage shall be mounted to the floor of
the vehicle. In addition, if the two optional braces referred to
in 18.2.1.B are utilized they shall be mounted, one on either
side, from the forward section of the cage to the firewall
or front fender wells (see GCR Section 18.2., Figure 1)." (2006 GCR, italics mine)

(Cool - they didn&#39;t copy-protect this version!)

There&#39;s no mention of protecting feet. A bar to the center of the firewall doesn&#39;t seem to me to be "on either side" of the cage.

K

[Bill Miller]

Yeah Kirk, but Tim&#39;s racing a Prod car.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 2 2005, 06:43 PM
Yeah Kirk, but Tim&#39;s racing a Prod car.

67236


Boo! Hiss! Get the pitchforks and torches, men...!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by joeg@Dec 2 2005, 03:51 PM
I like it Dave.

You could even make the Dowels a press fit, requiring one side to be heated and the other super-chilled to effect mating.

Intersting...

67220



Ok, well to continue the discussion, if you have a cross car tube, you could indeed bend it to rub against the firewall. Mine in fact does just that, in an attempt to thread it through the heater ducts, steering column and so on, as I didn&#39;t want it in the space between the dash and myself. (A 6&#39;3" guy in an RX-7 doesn&#39;t mind a little knee room, especially when things get ugly)

So, if the stayrod assembly is adjacent to the cross car tube in the same location, the mating would be easy.

To be legal, any holes need to be pre existing, and the dowels must be slip fit...not an interferance fit as could be done. I have done that on my 911, and it is a great technique, but...how would it come apart? IMHO, that crosses the "attached" line, as it can not be asembled and disassembled at will. Adding some threaded adjusters would help tweak it tight...

In certain cases, this could work, but I imagine those cases are rare.

[ddewhurst]

***QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Dec 2 2005, 06:43 PM)
Yeah Kirk, but Tim&#39;s racing a Prod car.***

***Boo! Hiss! Get the pitchforks and torches, men...!***

Ya, but, ya need to remember the car started life as a IT car at Watwerford. & those folks from MI have a hard time understanding diagonal from horizontal (side joke) when building a roll cage. <_< Ya expect them to understand one on either side, from the forward section of the cage to the firewall. :D

***I&#39;m trying to protect my feet, not the passenger&#39;s. ***

Ya Tim, it&#39;s all about safety. ;)

***Nope, roll cage must be inside the passenger compartment.***

How about if the press fit is on the engine bay side of the firewall & the slip fit is on the drivers side of the firewall. The pins are traveling through OEM holes. Keep in mind I am PLAYING WITH the devils advocate (more often know as Jake).

***So, if the stayrod assembly is adjacent to the cross car tube in the same location, the mating would be easy.***

***IMHO, that crosses the "attached" line, as it can not be asembled and disassembled at will.***

Come on devils advocate, please don&#39;t use the word "stayrod assembly" because the rule spec is "stayrod". I wouldn&#39;t want to be illegal because of a word. Also, my stayrod will become free by removing two bolts & by pulling the stayrod one inch in the forward direction & the stayrod including the two pressed pins will be "disassembled at will". :happy204:

[tderonne]

Don&#39;t have that arrangement in my IT built car. Just wanted to throw that out. I&#39;ve heard the argument, sounded pretty good.