Strut tower braces

[RedMisted]

Can someone tell me why triangulated strut tower braces are not allowed in IT? Please don't say that they go against the "philosophy" of IT!
In my view, these braces are essential in maintaining front-end handling predictability. Ask anybody who has a deep understanding of chassis engineering and they will tell you that a simple strut-to-strut brace is almost worthless... So why would the GCR not allow you to firm up your car in the name of predictability, hence safety?
I wish to take my Mustang into ITR, and really do not relish the idea of having to remove the cowl bolts from the strut brace, because I remember how flimsy the front of the car was before the brace was installed. It was like a Ramen noodle, and no wonder! The platform architecture dates back to the friggin' 1970s.

[Ed Funk]

Work to get the rule changed! There is a way, in the mean time, a rule is a rule and it applies to everyone!

[ddewhurst]

As Ed says, a rule is a rule the same as the IT roll cage, mount it to eight places only or choose a different class where the fules are more open. :)

[tom_sprecher]

But hell, do want you want and if you get protested tell em they can have the position or $4 chuck of wood if they're gonna be a pu$$y about it.

;)

[ddewhurst]

Tom, I was crewing in early March at Robeling Road & I understand after looking at a bunch of Spec Miatas why you may show your South East attitude of "tell em they can have the position or $4 chuck of wood if they're gonna be a pu$$y about it". Would I find the same disrespect for the rules if I had looked at some IT cars? It was a National race therefore no IT cars were around or I would have looked at them. We all should be promoting IT racing within the spirt of the written rules OR as Ed stated get the rule changed by writting a letter. :)

[tom_sprecher]

Ummm, yes, errr, no, welll, maybe. :blink:

Not knowing if it's a SEDiv thing or an IT7 attitude and only speaking only for myself the whole "in the spirit of IT" aspect of having or keeping certain rules does not hold a lot of credence with me and from what I have seen around here some others as well. The only reason I do this is to have fun and if some BS rule gets in the way of that I push it aside. Same goes if someone protests me. They get pushed aside.

Like others down here I have a history of not taking kindly to being told what I can and can not do. It stems from knowing I will not be able to effect change without influencing some distant group who obviously does not feel the same way I do so why waste my time trying. Instead, I do what I want, when I want, and if someone bitches about it I have only two words for them and generally speaking it ain't "I'm sorry".

This being said my car for the most part is legal. There may be some vestigial street parts that have not made it back on the car yet and won't until I get a little closer to being competitive. Even still I'm 60# overweight and at 6'2" and 190# this driver can only lose so much weight.

As far as promoting the IT rules I fully support changing any of the rules to make them more attractive to a new, younger group of drivers in an effort to make IT the most desirable group to race in and help turn around the stagnant rate of growth in the SCCA. I understand the purpose of the ITAC and respect them for their values and persistence even while not fully agreeing with their position. At the same time I have to do what is best for me.

[lateapex911]

Can someone tell me why triangulated strut tower braces are not allowed in IT? Please don't say that they go against the "philosophy" of IT!
In my view, these braces are essential in maintaining front-end handling predictability. Ask anybody who has a deep understanding of chassis engineering and they will tell you that a simple strut-to-strut brace is almost worthless... So why would the GCR not allow you to firm up your car in the name of predictability, hence safety?
I wish to take my Mustang into ITR, and really do not relish the idea of having to remove the cowl bolts from the strut brace, because I remember how flimsy the front of the car was before the brace was installed. It was like a Ramen noodle, and no wonder! The platform architecture dates back to the friggin' 1970s.

You've received some interesting responses....

The IT rules were written in the dark ages, essentially, and the category has been operating under those rules for a long time. Which is to say that a lot of cars have been built, and are being raced based on those rules.

From a rulesmaker's perspective, new rules need to be addressed while keeping several constants in mind. One, it is well known that one of the cornerstones of the IT philosophy is the stable ruleset. Competitors often remark that they choose IT because of the stability of the ruleset.

Second, any rule that is a change for every car needs to be made very carefully, as there is significant cost to the rule change.

You've stated that lacking a triangulation brace in the car is a safety concern. This is often termed "the safety card"..but honestly, it's a bit of a stretch, and a cloaked argument in most cases.

In this case, lacking the rigidity won't collapse the car, it will add "Spring" to the chassis. This is not uncommon, and has been dealt with for years. Perhaps it doesn't "feel" good, but lacking one won't lead to a catastrophic failure.

Each car has it's issues, and when considering a car to race, those issues need to be addressed. Triumphs are noted for brakes that are, well, not up to the task in instances. Those desiring to race a Triumph need to attend to the issue, or learn how to drive around it. Rabbits have known strut weaknesses. First generation RX-7 have weak front brakes if not set up properly. Other cars have transmissions known for failure, and so on.

There are two choices in a case like this, other than denial of a request:
!- Grant an exception on a case by case basis. We can all see the issues that arise in such cases.
2- Grant category wide permission.

Many have requested that they prefer to mount their battery in the rear of the car. Curiously, it's owners of FWD cars with high placed batteries who suggest this most often, and it's nearly always preceded by, "Safety is being compromised by the requirement to run my battery in it's stock location". Well, the manufacturer has decided that it's not all that unsafe to start with, but....

....the main reason requests like that are denied is the cost of such a change to the entire category. If allowed, the bar has been raised, and everyone must do it to remain in place. A second, less obvious reason is the competitive balance aspect, where certain cars could benefit greatly from such a change, while others will not.

In the end, requests like that need to be considered very carefully, as there are many costs to bear.

[RedMisted]

I understand Jake's message in the last post. The reasons for rules stability, cost containment, etc.
But with a strut tower brace, we are not talking about a high-dollar item. This isn't bitching about why I can't have, say, a $2K Brembo big brake kit to combat persistent fade issues on my 29XX-pound Mustang. (And believe me, I could use an upgrade over my pitiful 11-inch front rotors!)
If a potential modification can be had cheaply, why not allow it? Especially if it makes sense! After all, aftermarket UD pulleys, brake ducts, polyurethane suspension bushings and other relatively inexpensive mods are allowed in IT, and for a variety of reasons.
I'm relatively new to IT racing, but something tells me that if I raise a fuss with the proper authorities over triangulated strut braces, I'd get very little cooperation.
Wow. Can't have a couple little bars in the engine compartment.
Unreal. Really.

[Knestis]

Are you willing to support every other driver's individual desires, when he/she presents the exact same argument for his/her favorite cheap, safe modification allowance?

K

[Eagle7]

Ummm, yes, errr, no, welll, maybe. :blink:

Not knowing if it's a SEDiv thing or an IT7 attitude and only speaking only for myself the whole "in the spirit of IT" aspect of having or keeping certain rules does not hold a lot of credence with me and from what I have seen around here some others as well. The only reason I do this is to have fun and if some BS rule gets in the way of that I push it aside. Same goes if someone protests me. They get pushed aside.

Like others down here I have a history of not taking kindly to being told what I can and can not do. It stems from knowing I will not be able to effect change without influencing some distant group who obviously does not feel the same way I do so why waste my time trying. Instead, I do what I want, when I want, and if someone bitches about it I have only two words for them and generally speaking it ain't "I'm sorry".

This being said my car for the most part is legal. There may be some vestigial street parts that have not made it back on the car yet and won't until I get a little closer to being competitive. Even still I'm 60# overweight and at 6'2" and 190# this driver can only lose so much weight.

As far as promoting the IT rules I fully support changing any of the rules to make them more attractive to a new, younger group of drivers in an effort to make IT the most desirable group to race in and help turn around the stagnant rate of growth in the SCCA. I understand the purpose of the ITAC and respect them for their values and persistence even while not fully agreeing with their position. At the same time I have to do what is best for me.

Wow :eek:
What a load of crap. How do you stay out of jail with an attitude like that?

[Speed Raycer]

Toss in a triangulated strut tower brace in and everyone will have to redo their dash bars because all of the new builds will be running a bent dash bar up there that "rubs" the firewall.

Why stop at 3 points.. let's go for 5 and do it right!

[RedMisted]

Are you willing to support every other driver's individual desires, when he/she presents the exact same argument for his/her favorite cheap, safe modification allowance?

K

I'll support anything that is economical and has a rational basis for being allowed.
Again, someone answer me: Why a performance item like a UD pulley in IT but not a chassis-saving triangulated strut brace?
This whole thing is not making ANY sense to me...

[JeffYoung]

Part of racing IT is accepting the ruleset, and the fact that some of the reasons for allowing some changes and not others are part of the faded and distant past. That can be frustrating for those new to IT; it certainly was for me.

But you come to realize that the answer to your "why" question is, because one was allowed and the other not and because we value rules stability we don't make changes to the rules unless nearly absolutely necessary.

We can ask (and have asked) the same question you are posing about brake upgrades, removing washer bottles, "repairs" to subframes and a million other things that seem to make sense for an IT race car, but that we reject in favor of rules stability.

In time, I think you will come to appreciate this. If we allowed anything and everything that someone thought was a good, cheap idea, we'd have something that in my view would be unworkable.

So, read the rules, and build in accordance with them. It's part of the fun actually, figuring out ways to correct problems iwth your car within the limits of the rules.

[Hotshoe]

Part of racing IT is accepting the ruleset
It's part of the fun actually, figuring out ways to correct problems iwth your car within the limits of the rules.

Jeff,

.... I feel like I'm getting to know you better. But I never thought you were having so much fun until I finally realized that it is the "Problem Solving" that fascinates you so........:cool:

............ Man I needed a good laugh today........Thanks

.........Rickey T.............

[Z3_GoCar]

Jeff,

.... I feel like I'm getting to know you better. But I never thought you were having so much fun until I finally realized that it is the "Problem Solving" that fascinates you so........:cool:

............ Man I needed a good laugh today........Thanks

.........Rickey T.............

Only a real glutton for punishment would take on racing a Turd-8, or encourage a friend to try his hand on a Jensen-Healey. Truely, the worst of British :D

"Friends don't let friends race British cars!"

James

[RedMisted]

...because we value rules stability we don't make changes to the rules unless nearly absolutely necessary.


Well, then. Define "necessary".

There, I said it. Now we can delve into the realm of the open-ended until we are blue in the face.

I still don't see why certain things are allowed by the rules while others are not. I accept that's how this screwed-up world sometimes works, though....

Thanks to everyone for their opinions/input.

[JeffYoung]

Generally, in IT land, my personal opinion is that necessary means when a change is required to fix an obvious mistake in the rules, or to deal with a tech advancement that the existing rule set doesn't deal with.

There are about 20 things like a triangular strut brace (that being one of them actually) that I would like to add to my car, but which are not sanctioned by the present rule set. While sometimes frustrating, the "policy" of having a stable rule set means for me that I leave with some omissions and idiosyncracies in the rules that may not make sense to ME (but do to others).

Your car will race just fine without the triangular brace. Take a look at the rules and think about other ways to stiffen the the front. For example, sway bars are free.....................................

[JeffYoung]

I also disagree with this. While its effect can be minimal, a strut to strut brace does stop some flex and also provides additional structural support if/when you bang into something.

Again, look at the sway bar rules. I bet with as much room up front as you have in that car, you can fab up something that stiffens the front of the car as much as you could possibly want.

And Rick, I'm still trying to solve the problem of my car choice......lol.......of course, that problem is headed your way Monday for a make over........lay the botox on THICK!


. Ask anybody who has a deep understanding of chassis engineering and they will tell you that a simple strut-to-strut brace is almost worthless... .

[dickita15]

There is probably no question that many of the cars we race are losing something in performance due to chassis flex but that may not be all bad. Perhaps because of the inherent flex there is a point of diminishing returns on suspension upgrades. If I was able to keep the front end from flexing I would most likely get a better performance gain from better front suspension bushings, higher spring rates and or course the more expensive shocks that would require.
The unintended consequences of what seems like a logical change can be quite far reaching.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I challenge anyone to find a racer in any series from autox to NASCAR that thinks his rules make perfect sense.

[JLawton]

Chris,

There's always AS or Prod.......Or GT1..............

[lateapex911]

Perhaps because of the inherent flex there is a point of diminishing returns on suspension upgrades. If I was able to keep the front end from flexing I would most likely get a better performance gain from better front suspension bushings, higher spring rates and or course the more expensive shocks that would require.
The unintended consequences of what seems like a logical change can be quite far reaching.

Ding ding DING!!!! I was going to get into that in my post, but it was getting long, and Dick has summarized it masterfully here.

We have discussed the possibility of allowing Remote canister dampers, and many in opposition state that they will become a "must have"...but the genius of IT rules is that there are diminishing returns for spending buckets of dollars on any damper, RR or not, as the chassis is essentially an undamped spring...

Just for giggles, I've seen some words tossed out in the pro triangulation strut brace camp, like "economical" and "necessary" and "Has a rational basis"....

I bet if we asked ten guys for definitions on those items, or to draw the line on those items, we'd get 10 definitions or lines drawn. Try it...once you start thinking big picture, it snowballs quickly.

Chris, you've come here and asked a straight up question, and with some exceptions (sorry about those) you've gotten honest answers. In some ways you have an advantage of talking directly with those who write the rules, but, what you've read is merely the opinion of some. If you feel strongly about it, by all means draft a request and sent it to the CRB who will log it and put it on the ITAC's action list, where it will get discussed and officially answered.

[tom_sprecher]

Wow :eek:
What a load of crap. How do you stay out of jail with an attitude like that?

Without going into detail let's just say I have a rather long list of run-ins with the law. :shrug:

[Dano77]

I will say that the SPO rules make perfect sense,the problem with that is some of us need rules that dont make sense to keep everything in check. The guy {Tom} in the beginning of this discussion needs to be in SP. His problem will be solved,no one can say "You cant do that".
The new car has arrived & Im gunnin for Jake
Dan

[DoubleXL240Z]

1)"MY CAR" needs to have lexan windows in the name of safety!!:shrug:
2)If He can triangulate his strut bar, why can't I just build my cage all the way to the front struts, or in the interest of rules, just bolt my 4 point strut bar to my dash bar( that way its not a prod/GT cage:)).
3)If I could take my dashboard out it would not be in the way of a rescue attempt in case of an accident. Read: SAFER!!
4)" MY CAR" needs seperate master cylinders for the brakes, it will safer if I have better brakes!!
5) Its called AS, Prod, GT BP etc. all it takes is a little bit more money!!

Sorry( not really) if this is condescending(sp) but everybodys car choice has a weakness, everybody wants that fixed by the rules. I started building a car 2 1/2 years ago( an E36 BMW) 3 weeks after buying the car, the rules got changed, decided that was not the time to try to make an SIR work. Car stayed a street car than sold. I then bought a 240Z, favorite since I was a kid. Justified by the results of Ira/Marvin et al. Tore into the car, rot was beyond expectations. Looks like Prod will be the direction. After more homework it looks like $50-60,000 to chase Ira(again) and Ahrens in the southeast. Now its GT2. Spend 20,000 to be good regional IT car(realistic number), or good regional Prod car or regional GT car. If you want more room to play with the car move up/out from IT. Just remember when you get more room to play, somebody else has (more often than not) more money too. Now I can move mounts, make my own control arms etc.
Case and point:I have been driving a twin cam Neon. I am 6'4" and 300 pounds. With a full passenger door, 60 lbs bolted to the floor, a full coolsuit cooler, and a full tank of fuel I'm at minumum weight. Am I having fun? Is it a pig? Hell Yahh!!! to both.
Your milage may vary!!
Just my 2 cents.

[tom_sprecher]

The guy {Tom} in the beginning of this discussion needs to be in SP.Dan

The funny thing is when trying to decide which class to race in SPO was my first choice. The problem with that route was twofold. First, I felt I needed to walk before I ran. Second, a 4 yr old roller is about $14k. Add a decent motor and a trailer to haul it all in and the total it was double my budget. One day I will race SPO or GTA.


PRODUCTION??? :wacko:

NO WAY!!!

To be honest I'm using IT as a stepping stone. If I am still obsessed with racing for another 6 years the next car I get will be purpose built. No stamped steel or unibody for me. Give me a tube frame, fiberglass and raw HP. :023:

Lord, won't you buy me a fast SPO
My friends all drive Formula, that ain't the way to go
Worked hard all my life, can't save any dough
So Lord, won't you buy me a fast SPO

Thakew, Thakew virra much B)

[RedMisted]

There is probably no question that many of the cars we race are losing something in performance due to chassis flex but that may not be all bad. Perhaps because of the inherent flex there is a point of diminishing returns on suspension upgrades. If I was able to keep the front end from flexing I would most likely get a better performance gain from better front suspension bushings, higher spring rates and or course the more expensive shocks that would require.
The unintended consequences of what seems like a logical change can be quite far reaching.

Dick brings up a good point that I have not thought of before. If cost containment is the aim in IT, and it very well should be, then it makes sense to allow for some chassis flex so that racers won't go overboard with suspension upgrades. On that point, I'd give very little argument.
Basically, I just wanted someone to give me what is possibly a very valid reason for not allowing triangulated strut braces in IT, and Dick finally nailed it for me.
I may now "race" in peace.:eclipsee_steering:

[dickita15]

I may now "race" in peace.:eclipsee_steering:


glad to help. :happy204:

[kbailey]

Tom- maybe the people that feel like you do should go to SPU or just do track days. There are few rules to stand in your way of your "having fun" there, and those of us that respect the rules and respect our competitors wil not have to worry about you screwing up our fun by cheating and taking the fair competition out of it. No one is "telling you what to do"....you agree to a rule set each time you sign up for a race. It is your choice!

Look, you seem like a nice guy, I enjoyed chatting with you at our Roebling school and at Road Atlanta last year but your post is not what IT racing is about.

[quote=tom_sprecher;268200]Ummm, yes, errr, no, welll, maybe. :blink:


As for the strut bar- there are a dozen things I'd love to do to my 1st gen RX-7 to make it better. But I built my car specifically for SCCA ITA/IT7 and I accepted the limitations when I built it. Sometimes the rules stink...but we can't just keep changing them to suit each car. A lot of big changes have happened in the last few years and I believe lots of people are having to spend serious money to stay competitive...(for instance I am now legislated to 114 pounds over minimum weight instead of the 14 lbs over I built the car too...some day I'll have the money to drop about 40 pounds but for now I just have to take the hit).

Kevin Bailey
WDCR IT7

[Dano77]

Tom you should check out the classifieds right now.. I just so happen to be selling a 5 year old spo car with trailer & all pieces minus engine seat & belts.{shamless plug} I can be reached thru the ad info {#99 SPO) Im of course assumeing you can walk now & are starting to run.
Dano

[shwah]

We had this discussion (in the VW forum) over the winter.

My recollection is that no one could show where in the rules the permitted modification was limited to two connection points. Maybe I mis-remember. I'll see if I can find the post.

[924Guy]

We had this discussion (in the VW forum) over the winter.

My recollection is that no one could show where in the rules the permitted modification was limited to two connection points. Maybe I mis-remember. I'll see if I can find the post.

If I'm not mistaken, what we refer to as a strut tower brace is allowed by rule 5.d.5.B - Chassis, Susp Mounting Points - and is labeled as "one (1) front stayrod."

The GCR Technical Definition of a "Stayrod" is "a rigid reinforcement bar or rod interconnecting opposite sides of a car at structurally significant locations."

This leaves me as wondering if the technical definition has changed, because I too could've sworn that the definition prevented the stayrod from anything other than a direct line of action - no torque moments supported???

Very interesting...

[ddewhurst]

shwah/Chris, this suspension stayrod has been gone through on this site. The GCR glossary gives a pretty straight BAR or ROD across the SIDES of the car definition. Same as the engine stayrod.

[shwah]

That's what I remembered.

I found the previous discussion.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22974&highlight=eurosport

I always thought it HAD to be two connection points, but that is not what the words in the rule say.

Regardless, we hashed and rehashed it a bit in that thread.

[tom_sprecher]

Wow! In retrospect maybe comments like “I do what I want when I want” and “not taking kindly to being told what I can and can not do” should have been replaced with “I prefer to maintain a free spirited nature” and “be allowed to interpret and express my inner self without restraint”.



This being said my car for the most part is legal. There may be some vestigial street parts that have not made it back on the car yet and won't until I get a little closer to being competitive. Even still I'm 60# overweight and at 6'2" and 190# this driver can only lose so much weight.

Like I said my car is pretty much legal. I do not have a washer bottle or pump and don't even know what one looks like because both cars I purchased didn't have one either. The strut brace attaches to the towers only. There are no jacking plates (another lame rule). I use OEM suspension attachment points. The engine (I assume at 111 HP) is not ported. The cage has 6 points with the two allowed forward braces. Judging by the big jump from 3rd to 4th I assume the gear box has stock gearing. The tires are spec (a rule which I have mixed feelings about only because I don’t like being told, err…I mean, prefer to maintain a free spirited nature.)

Being 4 seconds off the pace at this point in time I try to stay out of last place. If by keeping some expensive (because they are not free) and hard to find (because I have to make an effort) parts that have a high probability of getting destroyed in a crash did not make it back on my car screws up my competitors fun then this is one time I will say I'm sorry but I'm not going to change it until it matters.

I take this position after talking to other SEDiv IT7 drivers. They implied its a Divisional class with our own rule set so as long as you’re not doing any engine, brake or drive train mods outside what is allowed then most really don’t care. Maybe it’s a different mindset down here, maybe it’s just me or maybe it just goes unsaid.

:shrug:

[betamotorsports]

But with a strut tower brace, we are not talking about a high-dollar item. This isn't bitching about why I can't have, say, a $2K Brembo big brake kit to combat persistent fade issues on my 29XX-pound Mustang. (And believe me, I could use an upgrade over my pitiful 11-inch front rotors!)
If a potential modification can be had cheaply, why not allow it?

This is a little misleading. Adding a triangulated STB is a cheap mod all by itself, but just adding a few pieces of tubing is not the end of this "cheap" mod. By stiffening the front end you can now:

1. Increase spring rate.
2. Re-valve or replace the shocks to handle the new spring rate.
3. Change the anti-roll bars to handle the new shocks and springs.

So, a cheap mod leads to more expensive mods.

[924Guy]

That's what I remembered.

I found the previous discussion.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22974&highlight=eurosport

I always thought it HAD to be two connection points, but that is not what the words in the rule say.

Regardless, we hashed and rehashed it a bit in that thread.

Seems like the relevant limitation point then is not that it's a "rod" or "bar" IMO - as rods and bars CAN support bending and torsional moments - but rather that they may only be "between the upper strut towers." So if you're triangulating to the firewall, shotguns, etc, the brace no longer fits the rule. But a strut tower brace that attaches at 8 points, as mine does, is not illegal simply because it attaches at 8 points instead of 2.

(Before anyone freaks - mine attaches at the 4 upper strut mount bolts, shared with my camberplates, on each side, and has rod ends in it anyway which will prevent any moments being transferred across the brace) :blink: