Adjustable Rear Lateral Links

[41hstock]

Have a '03 MINI Cooper that I autox in Street Touring class. Rules allow for replacing rear lateral links with adjustables for setting camber and toe. I plan to take my MINI into IT in the future and need clarification.

If I read the IT rules correctly, on a trailing arm independent rear suspension you can only adjust rear camber and toe using offset bushings or slotting the mounting points.

My question for everyone is: Are my adjustable lateral links IT legal, and if not is this a rule other racers would like to see changed???

My concern is that the MINI's stock lateral links are famously weak. I have seen accounts of them snapping on cars that are simply daily driven. I would refuse to track my car without replacements. Also, slotting seems like a major hassle that could potentialy weaken mounting points and not all that easily done.

If cost is the primary motivation behind this rule, I can tell you that bushings for this car are more expensive than many aftermarket links, and I would probably f#$% up the slotting and would need repairing.

It is just so much easier to use bolt-on adjustable links!!!

Thanks!

[Chip42]

your read on the IT rules and your follow on interpretation is correct. offset bushings or slotting, stock arms only.

it's a Warts and all type of thing. apparently the mini is a huge bag of weak parts, because this is not the first component we've heard of that can't take the rigors of racing. it's a "Warts and all" issue that might mean the mini is simply not cut out for IT, assuming the parts really are as weak as you describe.

It can't be fixed as you can't make exceptions for one car without opening the door to the snowballing of such allowances, which no one wants to see.

[JeffYoung]

As Chip indicates, we don't make exceptions to the rules for cost, or even for "safety" concerns like this one. I don't doubt the stock arms are weak but my guess is if you replace them on a regular basis (like I do with ball joints and other suspension items) you won't have an issue.

Note we are not singling you out -- we just don' make this kind of change for anyone, and we all have to race/work around the weak links in our cars.

[lawtonglenn]

...we all have to race/work around the weak links in our cars.


pun intended? :D

.

[Flyinglizard]

Look around the B spec MIni. see how it is addressed there and follow sucess.
If they are allowed better links, than they will also be allowed into IT with the right letters .

[41hstock]

Thanks for your insight, guys!

I like th B Spec angle, but only 2nd gen MINIs are allowed in that. They may have addressed the problem in the 2nd gen. However, there were some guys who raced 1st gen MINIs in Showroom Stock. They may be worth asking.

To give you an idea of how weak these puppies are, here is a couple of links to a MINI forum illustrating the link/control arm problem even on street driven MINIs. There many similar stories to these.

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/r52-cabrio-talk-2005-2008/235543-camber-and-clunk-noise.html

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/r50-r53-hatch-talk-2002-2006/204987-rear-lower-control-arm-snapped-in-half-what-to-do.html

I guess I will just have to keep the MINI as a fun track car, or find stronger legal replacements. Can you legally reinforce them???

[tom91ita]

I guess I will just have to keep the MINI as a fun track car, or find stronger legal replacements. Can you legally reinforce them???

So you would still track this car with this issue? If this many have failed it hard to believe there is no NHTSB recall or updated parts from mini.

[41hstock]

I would definitely not track the car with the "stock" links. I currently have aftermarket links on it.

They may have addressed the problem in some way, but I have not recieved any notices, etc. I need to do more digging to see if there is a legal alternative. I just wanted to confirm the rules before replacing parts.

[Greg Amy]

I do not see a future of alternate allowance for links in Improved Touring. It's just too far a step in philosophy right now.

However, this may be currently allowed in Super Touring; do you have a diagram to illustrate what parts you're talking about? I also believe that alternate links are *clearly* allowed in Production, but that may be too big a step in prep.

Show us what you're talking about.

- GA

[joeg]

If that picyure of the split arm is for real, If I had to "beef" that part up, perhaps a rear sway bar mount--a very surdy mount--would work.

However, that "split" looks strange.

[41hstock]

Here is a diagram of the rear suspension. The control arms are part #9, of course. I heard that they may have been beefed up for the 2004 thru 2006 model years. I will check'er out to be sure. That may be an alernative.

[Greg Amy]

ST Regs state: "Suspension components shall be the stock OEM parts, but they may be reinforced. Standard suspension bushings may be replaced with solid or spherical bushings."

STU allows alternate control arms.

STL allows "Front and rear upper control arms may be modified or replaced with items that allow camber and/or caster adjustment only." (My emphasis).

I think Prod allows you to replace both with alternates.

GA

[lateapex911]

I'm going to answer your question with another question: Why do you want to race?
Think big picture. What are your goals? Now? Long term??
I say this because often we just use the car we have/like, but often it's not the right tool for the job.
Decide what the job is, THEN choose the tool.
Also, you will be $$$ ahead if you sell WHATEVER car you 'have" and buy a running logbooked racecar. You will get history, a setup book, and all the parts for about 33% of what was spent, AND, most importantly, you'll know what the car can do in the class it's in.
Buy, don't build.
Unless you love the build, and have the spare cash.

[Matt93SE]

http://www.northamericanmotoring.com/forums/r50-r53-hatch-talk-2002-2006/204987-rear-lower-control-arm-snapped-in-half-what-to-do.html


In this link, the guy states a "new, improved control arm"... Is that an OEM replacement part? If that's a new part from MINI, then I certainly wouldn't complain that you replaced a known weak link with a revised OEM part. if someone else complained, you'd need to find something written in a manual or TSB for the car where the part numbers were superseded and such crapola.

[41hstock]

Well, I checked some online parts resources for any changes in part numbers between the 2002 thru 2006 model runs. No differences shown. I searched for any related recalls and technical service bulletins with no luck. I called the MINI parts counter at the local dealership. They were not aware of any upgraded parts, and their computers showed the same part number for all models.

It looks like I will put this on the back burner for now. Thanks for everyone's input!

[T Broring]

Asking for a vehicle specific allowance to reinforce the stock arms would probably be an easier sell than aftermarket performance arms with added adjustability. That said, there could be some update/backdate parts from the last model years of the first gen Mini that would help. I know there was an aluminum rear lower arm available on some of the Cooper Works cars that was stock in dimension but better material. A similar part was incorporated on the next gereration cars.

[JeffYoung]

I can say with pretty near to 100% assurance that THIS ITAC is not going to approved modified or alternate upper links.

That said, take a close look at the rules on traction bars and see if that helps you.....

[ShelbyRacer]

Look around the B spec MIni. see how it is addressed there and follow sucess.
If they are allowed better links, than they will also be allowed into IT with the right letters .

I'd be careful in making such statements.

As the newest member of the ITAC, I can only speak for the short-term past, but I'd say that the likelihood of getting this type of modification, even for one car, even if it's legal in B-spec, is extremely low. We will certainly discuss each letter individually on its merits and consequences, so there's no harm in sending something in, but I wouldn't want anyone thinking that the rules and allowances in one class would directly transfer to another, even when going "up through" the categories.

As others have said, an allowance for alternate suspension pieces is a fundamental step away from the basic philosophy of the class (a phrase for which I have a new respect). There are many individual or systemic cases of parts that are "unsafe" unless replaced, and yet there are racers that manage to run those cars with some success by realizing a shorter maintenance interval or a careful periodic inspection process.


A side note---

Considering that I've driven an SSC Mini at a few hillclimbs (held class record at one hill), and that same car was routinely driven by multiple drivers at each event, I'd be skeptical that the suspension parts are that fragile. Said car has over 100K miles on it currently (obviously street driven- in NJ and PA in addition to being raced) and is still climbing away.

[lateapex911]

I can say with pretty near to 100% assurance that THIS ITAC is not going to approved modified or alternate upper links.

That said, take a close look at the rules on traction bars and see if that helps you.....


I'd be careful in making such statements.

As the newest member of the ITAC, I can only speak for the short-term past, but I'd say that the likelihood of getting this type of modification, even for one car, even if it's legal in B-spec, is extremely low. We will certainly discuss each letter individually on its merits and consequences, so there's no harm in sending something in, but I wouldn't want anyone thinking that the rules and allowances in one class would directly transfer to another, even when going "up through" the categories.

As others have said, an allowance for alternate suspension pieces is a fundamental step away from the basic philosophy of the class (a phrase for which I have a new respect). There are many individual or systemic cases of parts that are "unsafe" unless replaced, and yet there are racers that manage to run those cars with some success by realizing a shorter maintenance interval or a careful periodic inspection process.


A side note---

Considering that I've driven an SSC Mini at a few hillclimbs (held class record at one hill), and that same car was routinely driven by multiple drivers at each event, I'd be skeptical that the suspension parts are that fragile. Said car has over 100K miles on it currently (obviously street driven- in NJ and PA in addition to being raced) and is still climbing away.

As a former ITAC member, thanks guys!
(And I agree. if I were still on board, i'd vote "no".)