Rules nerds wanted

[backformore]

I was looking at a car for sale in the classifieds, which is listed on ebay. I'm not sure if I believe the front camber plates would be legal and I'd like to get the opinion of some rules nerds.

The car is an 87 GTI. It is in the classifieds and has a link to eBay. Sorry I'm not talented enough to post the picture or a link here.

Well, I'll give the link a try



http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAP...TRK%3AMEWA%3AIT

[RSTPerformance]

what about them would you say is illegal?

Raymond

[backformore]

Suspension Mounting Points
1. Cars equipped with MacPherson strut suspension may
decamber wheels by the use of eccentric bushings at
control arm pivot points, by the use of eccentric bushings
at the strut-to-bearing-carrier joint, and/or by use of
slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point. If
slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing
chassis structure and may not serve as a reinforcement
for that structure. [u]Material may be added or removed
from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation
of adjuster plate.

Would this constitute reinforcing the chassis structure?

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's really pushing it IMHO. Two ways to look at it:

1. It looks AWEFULLY reinforced to me - overdone, very overdone - so I ask why and would lean toward illegal.

2. Look at the last sentence of that rule. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate." This is most certainly what the installer did. I would then have to argue (prove) it served as a reinforcement. I would lean toward legal if I thung my hat on this portion of the rule.
BUT

To me the most telling piece of info is in the ad itself.

"The camber plates are custom built and welded to the unibody by xxx - no one ever looks at them in person and doesn't comment on them."

Huh? Double Huh? Why mention it at all unless it's an issue?

Anyway, they sure look well made! Non-reversable in my little world however...

[JamesB]

actually looking very very long at that design, it looks like they raised the tower nearly 1" effectivly lowering the car 1". this would require less drop on a coil over or sleave leaving room before the bump stop (or the cost of a shortened strut.)

With that being said, does that then change a suspension pickup point or is that legal given the clause for camber plates?

[backformore]

Andy, you described the situation exactly as I would have. The non-reversible nature of it makes me a little leary. I don't want to kick everybodies butt and then get protested and disqualified!! Some would effectively argue that I need not worry, but....

I'd welcome any more opinions.

Thanks

[RSTPerformance]

My initial opinion based on the pictures.... (I realy need to see the car though) is that it is legal.

The comment: "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate" is working in his/her favor on this one I think. Somehow we we would need to prove that the material was unecessary, and that is probably not possible without seeing the car and talking to the person who installed the plates.

Thats just my quick opinion from looking at a picture...

Here is another question for you: My experience has shown that simply adding a camber (camber/caster) plate to the top of a strut tower without removing material actually does the same thing as building up the plate 1" or so, and generally material needs to be taken away in order to fit the plate and strut under the hood without it hitting. Thus I think that could be a "dead" issue in my mind, so if it was what other benefit does adding the material where it has been added help in the cars dynamics to make it better than someone elses car?

Raymond "Just curious" Blethen

[ddewhurst]

Please give me a break. ALL OF US in IT racing need to start protesting many of the known ILLEGAL items because in the long term cleaning of the IT mess will prolong the future of low cost IT racing. & if the officals don't follow through to the written rule WE need to get rid of them.

Lets see now I need new camber plates. How about if I have just a one piece steel camber plate that is welded to the right side of the car,travels across & is welded to the left side of the car & then travels to the firewall & is welded to the firewall also. By one of the previous definitions posted my new camber plate woule be legal. B.S. all the way. Where dose it all stop.

I sent a couple of you guys pictures of the illegal Spec Miata & ITA Miata roll cage with the opinion of Jeremy. There are a bunch of these roll cages installed & in my judgement when the roll cages are protested the cars should be made ILLEGAL. If ya can't read rules, ya can't play race cars. By the way guys I received a FULL REFUND from the roll cage manufacture. If people are going to do monkey see monkey do they need to pay the price. ILLEGAL CAR.............. My Spec Miata project is on the shelf. I am back to building a ITA 2280 pound 1st gen RX-7 to replace the car that was totaled. I will protest the first ITA Miata I see in my race group with an illegal roll cage. I might even warn & explain to the owner before the race why his roll cage is illegal & that if he races I will protest his roll cage. His decision.

Same with this streched, tortured rule interperation that the fab/weld guy used to install the illegal welded camber plate. Is anyone going to give this fab guy credit for being one bright genious or shall we give him credit for being one big cheat.

Send Jeremy T. at SCCA Topeka a picture of the welded camber plate & ask for his thoughts/opinion.

[lateapex911]

Well, I have seen camber plates that mount above the stock location, effectively adding travel, as mentioned above, and nobody bats an eye.

This does fit the letter of the law...........

But the spirit is stretched, thats for sure.

However, the rules must be definitive about what constitutes the "edge", and this rule is not.

In this case, I fear it's a case of "If it says you can, you bloody well can"

If we don't like it, we need to adress how the rule is written, and make the new rule effective for cars with logbooks after XXXXXX date.

A protest would be, IMHO, a crap shoot. Some techs will roll their eyes and want to go to the beer party, others will toss the guy.

( A version of two opposite opinions occured when I went to get my car teched for it's initial logbook. I copied the rear support design of the car owned by the head of tech for a local region...same car as mine. But the tech guy who looked at it failed it and refused to issue a logbook based on those bars. So, I went and got the guy and the car I copied, who was at the event. Much discussion ensued...but they had already written it up in the logbook, and said, "What do you want us to do, scratch it out? It's written in ink!" So, instead of a messy logbook, their decision was to let his car stand, but I had to rip my bars out and reweld...all so that my logbook wouldn't be messy.
Needless to say, my thougts regarding certain tech inspectors was "What a bunch of morons".......)

I think things are better these days....but, judgement calls like this are just that..and reasonable men may differ.

[ddewhurst]

***Some techs will roll their eyes and want to go to the beer party, others will toss the guy.***

Jake, for you I'll repeat my previous message. ***ALL OF US in IT racing need to start protesting many of the known ILLEGAL items because in the long term cleaning of the IT mess will prolong the future of low cost IT racing. & if the officals don't follow through to the written rule WE need to get rid of them.***

Add liberal ITAC members to the officals list that we may need to get rid of.

Jake is my camber plate in the previous message legal ?

***Lets see now I need new camber plates. How about if I have a one piece steel camber plate that is welded to the right side of the car,travels across & is welded to the left side of the car & then travels to the firewall & is welded to the firewall is that camber plate legal ? By one of the previous definitions posted my new camber plate woule be legal.***

Please answer this question yes or no................ From your answer we can all decide if your a liberal ITAC member that needs to gotten rid of.

Let the rules cheating dirt bags step their game up & to Production or GT.

[lateapex911]

David, I think my post was pretty clear on my stance on the issues. Please submit your letter asking for my removal if you feel I fit in a category you deem unhealthy for the club. I am sure the ITAC will give it due consideration.

As to your hypothetical situation, I would imagine that such a set up would be ruled illegal under the "Serves an illegal purpose" clause, as it would be very easy to see and deduce.

[Bill Miller]

It's really pushing it IMHO. Two ways to look at it:

1. It looks AWEFULLY reinforced to me - overdone, very overdone - so I ask why and would lean toward illegal.

2. Look at the last sentence of that rule. "Material may be added or removed from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation of adjuster plate." This is most certainly what the installer did. I would then have to argue (prove) it served as a reinforcement. I would lean toward legal if I thung my hat on this portion of the rule.
BUT

To me the most telling piece of info is in the ad itself.

"The camber plates are custom built and welded to the unibody by xxx - no one ever looks at them in person and doesn't comment on them."

Huh? Double Huh? Why mention it at all unless it's an issue?

Anyway, they sure look well made! Non-reversable in my little world however...
[/b]

Andy,

If you read the way the rule is written, it says the plate may not serve as a reinforcement. It says nothing about what the permitted additional material may do. Given the way the rule is written, I don't see these plates being an issue. What I do see as an issue w/ that car, is the cage. Where are the rear stays for the main hoop? I don't think that X-brace satisfies the requirement for rear stays. I saw this car posted on VWVortex, and asked the seller if it had an SCCA log book.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

If you read the way the rule is written, it says the plate may not serve as a reinforcement. It says nothing about what the permitted additional material may do. Given the way the rule is written, I don't see these plates being an issue. What I do see as an issue w/ that car, is the cage. Where are the rear stays for the main hoop? I don't think that X-brace satisfies the requirement for rear stays. I saw this car posted on VWVortex, and asked the seller if it had an SCCA log book. [/b]

I am with you Bill. I just tried to show both sides of the potential issue. I would have to know a lot more about the 'stength' of the shock towers in order to formulate a true opinion. If this car (like some) had problems with shocks coming up through the towers, then that would certainly be 'reinforcement' IMHO.



AB

[ddewhurst]

***As to your hypothetical situation, I would imagine that such a set up would be ruled illegal under the "Serves an illegal purpose" clause, as it would be very easy to see and deduce.***

Jake, are you serious with your respones towards my firewall camber plate being illegal & the friken strengthing strut tower (ILLEGAL) camber weldment being legal. Whatever your drinking please change liquids because your sense of fairness is out of bounds. WHY ARE ALL OTHER CAMBER PLATES BOLT ON ITEMS ? ARE ALL THE OTHER CAMBER PLATE MANUFACTURES DUMB OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN ?

Jake, along with the rear stays thet support the main hoop issue Bill mentioned the friken "X" that supports the main hoop is not within bounds of the rules because the "X" is made of three tubes, not two tubes as the written rule specs. Also as an member of the ITAC do you beleive that the "X" suport of the main hoop delivers the same strength support to the main hoop for driver protection that the two single tubes offer if installed per the recomended illustration in the GCR ?

[Andy Bettencourt]

WHY ARE ALL OTHER CAMBER PLATES BOLT ON ITEMS ? ARE ALL THE OTHER CAMBER PLATE MANUFACTURES DUMB OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN ?
[/b]

Dave,



I don't think that any 'off the shelf' camber plate manufacturers care all that much about IT rules. They care about selling products to dorks like me. Bolt on (with a little trimming with a grinder) is do-able. Welding and fabricating is much more. The market for a 'weld-up' kit is non-existant.



The question is what is it reinforcing. You decide...and a few less cups of coffee is your new prescription.



You seriousl about protesting peoples cages?



AB

[ShelbyRacer]

Suspension Mounting Points
1. Cars equipped with MacPherson strut suspension may
decamber wheels by the use of eccentric bushings at
control arm pivot points, by the use of eccentric bushings
at the strut-to-bearing-carrier joint, and/or by use of
slotted adjusting plates at the top mounting point. If
slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing
chassis structure and may not serve as a reinforcement
for that structure. [u]Material may be added or removed
from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation
of adjuster plate.

Would this constitute reinforcing the chassis structure?
[/b]

Looking carefully at the rule noted above, I see something that always steered (no pun intended) my interpretation of the rule-

If slotted plates are used, they shall be located on existing chassis structure

This always meant to me that you remove as little material as possible from the stock strut tower top, and then attach the camber plate *to* the top where the original strut mount was.

Also, in that case, the new plate CLEARLY adds strength and rigidity (the definition of reinforcment) due to its new location, attachment to adjacent structural pieces with attachment methods that are superior to stock, and the fact that the plate itself is of thicker material.

Again, that's just my interpretation, and since I'm not going to be part of an SOM any time soon, it's worth about as much as it cost for me to post it here (probably less).

That being said, if I lost to that car, I'd write a paper on that and the roll cage rear braces... Nothing personal, but I'd just like to know how some other see it, and I'm pretty certain I'd find at least a few others who were curious enough to join in...

[gprodracer]

I have no dog in this hunt, except having formerly run in I.T. for 12 years. I don't have the current rules
in front of me, but they used to say, quite plainly, that the camber plates could not be permanant, or
welded in place. ( hence the sellers comment about no one saying anything about it.) After looking at the
modifications, I can't honestly see how anyone could even remotely see this as being legal in any form.
Back in the day there were several cars that were tossed ( and rightfully so!!) for the same thing. I don't
know Mr. Dewhurst from Adam, but I agree with him 100%, and think he should follow up on his Miata
cage issue. Just because "others are doing it" has never been an acceptable reason to bend the rules as
written. If you want something changed, get the rule re-written. I'm sure I'll have plenty of negative comments on this post, so have at it, but the rule says you can add material to "facillitate" adding camber
plates, not totally re-enforce the entire structure.
Let the flames begin!!

Mark Larson
CFR member #164010

[lateapex911]

***As to your hypothetical situation, I would imagine that such a set up would be ruled illegal under the "Serves an illegal purpose" clause, as it would be very easy to see and deduce.***

Jake, are you serious with your respones towards my firewall camber plate being illegal & the friken strengthing strut tower (ILLEGAL) camber weldment being legal. Whatever your drinking please change liquids because your sense of fairness is out of bounds. WHY ARE ALL OTHER CAMBER PLATES BOLT ON ITEMS ? ARE ALL THE OTHER CAMBER PLATE MANUFACTURES DUMB OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN ?

Jake, along with the rear stays thet support the main hoop issue Bill mentioned the friken "X" that supports the main hoop is not within bounds of the rules because the "X" is made of three tubes, not two tubes as the written rule specs. Also as an member of the ITAC do you beleive that the "X" suport of the main hoop delivers the same strength support to the main hoop for driver protection that the two single tubes offer if installed per the recomended illustration in the GCR ?
[/b]

David-

I'm drinking a Gatorade right now...I'm going for a run later.

This will be my last response to you on this issue. Read my posts again. They are clear. I am not a SOM, nor am I on the Appeals court...I am giving an opinion on what I think could happen in a protest.

No where have I stated what I want.......just an opinion on the result of a protest on the legality.

Go ahead....I'll wait..read my first post again. Oh never mind I'll quote myself.

.....But the spirit is stretched, thats for sure.

However, the rules must be definitive about what constitutes the "edge", and this rule is not.

In this case, I fear it's a case of "If it says you can, you bloody well can"

If we don't like it, we need to address how the rule is written, and make the new rule effective for cars with logbooks after XXXXXX date.

A protest would be, IMHO, a crap shoot. Some techs will roll their eyes and want to go to the beer party, others will toss the guy.[/b]

So the rule says you can add material. Which this guy did. Now the "reinforcement clause comes into play. He can say, "No, I just added that material to make sure the struts were actually attached to solid material. The top was too flimsy when it was clearanced. It doesn't strenghten the chassis itself measureably...prove it does".

As I said, it's a crap shoot at that point...in my opinion.


Now, if you don't like it, you should be constructive and proactive. Either formulate a well written and logical letter to the ITAC/CRB regarding what you feel is a gray area of the rues, requesting that clearer definitions be made....or, if you feel that it's flat illegal, and you want to make a point, follow up and find a way to protest that car.

Ok, the toilet needs cleaning, and that's more productive than going over the rear cage. Others have covered that just fine.

Cheers..........

[Bill Miller]

I have no dog in this hunt, except having formerly run in I.T. for 12 years. I don't have the current rules
in front of me, but they used to say, quite plainly, that the camber plates could not be permanant, or
welded in place. ( hence the sellers comment about no one saying anything about it.) After looking at the
modifications, I can't honestly see how anyone could even remotely see this as being legal in any form.
Back in the day there were several cars that were tossed ( and rightfully so!!) for the same thing. I don't
know Mr. Dewhurst from Adam, but I agree with him 100%, and think he should follow up on his Miata
cage issue. Just because "others are doing it" has never been an acceptable reason to bend the rules as
written. If you want something changed, get the rule re-written. I'm sure I'll have plenty of negative comments on this post, so have at it, but the rule says you can add material to "facillitate" adding camber
plates, not totally re-enforce the entire structure.
Let the flames begin!!

Mark Larson
CFR member #164010
[/b]

Mark,

Several people have quoted the passage from the ITCS. There's nothing that restricts the method of attachment of the camber plates. The rule also says that you can remove or add material. Again, no limit on how much. I agree that the 'reinforcement' statement is confusing, but it only applies to the plate, not the material that you're allowed to add.

[bldn10]

I don't know what the top of a stock Golf tower looks like but do I gather that there has been about an inch extension added to the tower? If so, no way is that legal because it indeed changes the attachment point. I think the allowance to add or remove material simply means that you can enlarge the opening if necessary, drill holes, and/or e.g. level off the top for a flat plate if the top is too rounded. You can do it ONLY "to facilitate installation of the adjuster plate." You cannot bootstrap the rule by fabricating your own plate SO THAT it will be necessary to make otherwise illegal mods, especially if off-the-shelf plates are available that do not require such mods. Likewise, Bill, I do not think that the argument that, although the plate cannot serve as reinforcement, added material can, holds any water whatsoever. If A cannot do B, but you can add C solely to facilitate A, then C cannot do B either. Otherwise, a whole gamut of illegal stuff becomes legal. In this case I'd say that the plate is legal but the added material is not, so the whole thing is illegal. Nice fab though.