1st. Gen Wheels help

[itaracer]

I got written up for a rules violation for having tire tread outside the vertical plane of the fender. Specifically GCR - ITCS Section D, Paragraph 7, Sub paragraph 4 "Tire Tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender openibg when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground." This is found in the GCR ITCS page 16.
I have 13X7 wheels with zero offset and 4 inches back space and 225/50/13. Can anyone recommend a wheel size that will get me out of this spot?

[lateapex911]

Ouch!

Strange protest! You bring up an interesting point. Was it front or rea that was the issue? I'll have to check, but I seem to remember that at one time I thought the ideal offset was different front to rear.

How was this measured? The good book says to roll the tire in talc, (pump 'em up first!!) to determine the actual tread, then measure.

Are your fender lips perhaps not in the correct position??

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Quickshoe]

My wheels were 4 1/2" backspace. Before you rush out and order them, look at the location of your lower spring perch. If there is a fit issue at this point you may have to go to shorter springs, verify that you will have enough travel in the shorter spring to avoid coil bind.

How much outside of the plane were you? My fenders had oblong mounting holes to provide the proper seam gap, perhaps you can move them out a little.

[ddewhurst]

To add to what the good book told Jake, the good book also says to do the test with the driver in the seat. What were the powder measurements versus the outside measurement of your fender lips? To get your negative camber did ya push the bottom of the tire out & if ya did, how much?

I use 13 x 7 Pansports, 4 inch back space with 206/60/13's. A couple degrees of negative camber & no one ever protested.

Did someone protest your car? Why was this measured?

Later
David
Wauwatosa, WI
Spec-7 # 14

It had to be the back, Bastages... ok ITADUDE, if you already havnt cambered your rear end now its time to do so, any protests come up, tell them they had better eleminate all the cars in front of you as well cause none of them cars are factory spec'ed with any!!!! camber in the rear. I run hoosier 225/50/13 and they have no tread pursae, contact patch as roll in flour would be well inside with the same rims you have, what moranus protested you? name names...

[itaracer]

Thanks for all the replies. OK a little more background it was at the March Reg/Nat in Memphis. Front and back tires were "outside the vertical plane". The tire talc test was not used. It was a visual observation only.

In the front I had 2 degrees neg camber. I've since changed to 2.5 degrees. I've also rolled the fenders. I've spent most of this morning going over your responses and checking measurements on the car. The rear still seems to be pretty close but I think I have the issue with the front resolved.

lateapex911 - I think your probably right about needing a different offset in the rear.

Quickshoe - Slotting the fender attachment points. Great idea. Thanks. I have run into the spring perch clearance issue. didn't know it was a problem till I'd cut grooves on the inside tire walls from contact with the spring perch.

ddewhurst - I wish I had been a bit more agressive in my protest and demanded the powder test. I've learned now and will not repeat this mistake. No one protested. At the scales after the Regional on Saturday my car was swarmed by Stewards. They checked the wheel width and conferred for some time about my tires being "outside the plane" before making the entry in my log book.

7'sRracing - Cambering the rear would be a great help but I have no idea how to camber the rear. Can you provide any links?

thanks again.

Grundy

[rlekun]

I run 4" offset panasports with 225/45/13 (eleven inches of tread width!) with front turn-in spacers and its okay. As someone said above, if they're going to start making that note in logbooks, they'd better have lots of ink pens. Any one want to borrow my Louisville Slugger.
Slotting the fender mounting bolts is a little too obvious.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by rlekun:
Slotting the fender mounting bolts is a little too obvious.

Stock fenders are already "slotted". I didn't mean to suggest that you slot them further. Just make certain they are all the way out.

[itaracer]

Ok everyone, I've got the tires and wheels back on and pulled the fenders out as much as the "stock" slots allow. I think I'm good to go int he front. The back still worries me a little.

There was some mention of chamber for the rear. Any suggestions there?

[lateapex911]

I would do the talc test yourself. If you fail, then worry, if not, then if anybody says anything, get out your rulebook and make them do it right this time. I bet you don't have anything to worry about, except for an apparently overzealous official.

As for Daryls rear camber, it's a bit of a personal crusade for him (right Daryl?? ) His point is that there is no specification from Mazda to reference, so how can any amount of rear camber be considered illegal?

Daryl can fill you in on his "technique" but, as I understand it, the axle housing is bent, presumably due to use and abuse (or a good press), so that the camber is in the neighborhood of 1 degree. Of course, camber is ggod, but toe is bad...watch the bending plane! As I understand it, any more causes internal issues and longevity concerns.

That said, this is just what I understand, not from experience, as the whole issue kinda scares me! Although they do say there is time to be had with the right rear camber.

Before I went and bent an axle, I'd do the talc test to be sure I had a problem.

The whole "official protest" strikes me as very unusual, to put it succinctly.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Level your car on four jack stands at the exact rake it would sit if it was on the ground, take a back wheel off and tack weld a piece of square tubing to the housing with a mag level with the bubble in the middle, now you can duplicate how the rear end angle is even out of the car. take the rear end out, leave it all together and give it to a shop experienced in tweaking housings such as any late model sportsman fab shop in the country, 1 3/8 to 1 1/2 deg is all you want and it must be as close to middle as possible so as to not strain axel bearings, toe in set at as close to 0 as poss, in is bad, out is horrible. im told its worth 1 to 2.5 sec a lap depending on your driving style. one more thing, if you run one track all the time and it consists of 9 right hand turns and 3 left handers you can really gain a advantage by pos/neg tweaking, in this case you will need to also use bite setup or wedge where your inside rear has more pressure to the ground than the outside, this will provide and immense amount of drive traction coming out of a corner and you will need a stiffer outside front spring to keep it from nosing down to compensate. all this can be achieved with spring height axcept the outside front, it should be a tad stiffer. Ill probly get chastised here for posting this but from what I have seen its the norm at least out here, I wont even go there with what I have seen under the hoods and under cars in IT in the last year. nothing new, I was at Laguna in 1970 when I heard that both Parnelli Jones-George Folmer(front of cars 9" short) and mark donahue-Ronnie Bucknum(2 gallon filler necks/acid dipped bodys)were found illegal. and these were the most respected drivers in the country.












[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited July 26, 2003).]

[pgipson]

>>The whole "official protest" strikes me as very unusual, to put it succinctly.<<

Doesn't sound like a protest, but a tech steward (or tech chief) interpertation of the rules. By entering a discrepancy in the log book it becomes something that must be corrected before the next event. I would guess that the only alternative would have been to file a protest against the tech steward that made the call or the tech official that made the entry, or both.

[dickita15]

I agree it does not sound like a protest. i would read and reread the test procedure then perform it myself. if it passes i would present the car to tech as is and ask that it be signed of. no attitude just ask it be properly tested. probably the next tech inspector will know the way to do this anyway.
dick

[itaracer]

Thanks to all for the help. I did the "powder test" and I'm good to go all the way around. Ran good at Gateway this weekend. Had the fastest RX7 there. Still could not catch the CRX's.

Thanks again.

[rlekun]

Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
Ill probly get chastised here for posting this but from what I have seen its the norm at least out here, I wont even go there with what I have seen under the hoods and under cars in IT in the last year.

Knestis must be on an extended camping vacation with no internet access.

So if I understand this right, you're bending the axle housing to change the camber? And you're rationalizing its legal because there is no specification on rear camber?

[Speed Raycer]

Were you the yellow RX? We were getting a bunch of friendly flack about our new Panasports on our 7.

We'd have been more competition for ya on Sat., but we just redid the entire suspension and have to learn the car all over again. One of our drivers pulled 1:15s out of it when he raced it in EProd. That was pretty funny to see an IT car out there with the Production guys. On Sun. I was just out there to keep my license and shake off the crash in t3/4 the last time I drove the car in Oct. Didn't get in the groove until around lap 10

I was going to check out your car, but we were crewing for about 5 other cars as well as our 7 so it was pretty hectic.

------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

<A HREF="http://www.pfmracing.com" TARGET=_blank>
www.pfmracing.com </A>

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by rlekun:
And you're rationalizing its legal because there is no specification on rear camber?

This debate has come up time and time again.

If you measure 20 different 1st gen RX7 rears, you'll have 20 variations of toe and camber, both Positive and Negative measurements. There is no factory specification for toe or camber on the rearend. Nothing to compare it to.

So whats legal... A car that has been crashed and by coincidence gained a sagging negatively cambered rear or the car that has a factory rear that over the years gained wheels toeing out oposite directions and negative camber on one wheel and positive on the other?

you guys have no idea how this infuriates me to hear that in a stock class a honda CRX can have 1 1/2 deg rear camber and thats fine, B.S., they have written specs and its 0...... but show me one thats running 0. all because theirs are adjustable, like I said, protest me and be prepared for 40 other protests because their isnt one legal car out there. hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm

[lateapex911]

Ahhhhh, Daryl I DO know how it infuriates you!

Here's where I think your argument has issues. By bending your axle, you are making substantive changes that are expressly prohibited by the good book.

So, not so good there.

On the other hand, wear and tear can result in the same situation.

Hmmm.

Where it gets cloudy is the proof. Your entire argument is based on the burden of proof .....your protester needs to prove that your axle doesn't meet specs. Nobody has been able to come up with reputable specs on the Gen 1 live axle alignment. No specs, no proof, protest disallowed ......presumably. (!)

Now, because the book allows cars with adjustments to use those adjustments outside the stock settings, and because it prohibits (IIDYCDIYC) axle bending, you wind up on the illegal, but can't prove it ground.

It's an interesting conundrum! And morally as well!

Has anyone ever heard of such a protest??

(and don't get me wrong Daryl, I'm not throwing stones here....just bringing up the interesting nature of this, and other similar situations)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Quickshoe]

Daryl,

There are advantages that certain model cars are going to have over others. Certain mods that some cars are allowed to make that others aren't. That's what makes this interesting.

How would you like to run a TR8 and be the only one in the class that must raise their stock car to meet minimum ride height rules when everyone else gets to lower theirs?

There will never be equality in a series that has such a diverse array of cars, budgets, ability, dedication, etc.

Just think of the glory you can enjoy when you finally legally, best all the CRX's with their fancy chips, lower weight, negative cambered rears and port-matched heads.

Don't let yourself fall into the everbody else is cheating mode.

I do see your logic of the "no spec given, so how can you say it's wrong?" argument. But see no value in the everyone else gets to, why can't I? Just go out there and race that thing. Beat them fair and square, you'll feel much better when you do.