Rules nerds wanted

[Bill Miller]

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.
[/b]

Bill,

I'm ask big a proponent of IIDSYCYC as the next guy, but when it says that you can, you certainly can. It says that you can add material to the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of the adjuster plate. No limit on how much material you can add, or if you can only add enough material to make the plate level. BTW, 'leveling off' the plate changes the attachment point, if you're going to use that arguement.

While I don't think those kinds of strut tops are necessarily w/in the spirit of the rules, I do believe that they fit the letter w/o any kind of strained or tortured interpretation. Again, this is my opinion, and YMMV.

[Greg Amy]

You detractors are thinking far too simplistically. You think THAT'S illegal? Hah! I think there's a lot more area for improvement; the ideas going through my head in regards to this simple little "problem" are pretty impressive.

Bottom line, this mod is not only legal, it hasn't gone far enough. If someone were to protest this they would have their ass handed to them on a plate (minus the $25 fee, thankyouverymuch.)

Open your mind! It's a whole new world out there, kids, and it's been codified (psst: think spherical bearings as bushings...). This is just the beginning...

[gprodracer]

Greg, and others,

Please God, tell me you are joking! The rule clearly states that you can add material, not remove and
entirely replace the top of the strut tower, to say nothing of the reinforcement issue. See Dvaid Dewhursts,
and Shelbyracers comments from before. By your logic, then Davids idea of building a camber plate, and running it to the firewall, and back to the other strut tower constitutes a "legal" mod.. "it doesn't say how much, or little material I can use to mount my 1" steel camber plates, so I used enough to attach it to the other tower!!!" You CAN"T be serious....CAN YOU???
I am all for building a car to the limit of the rules, but for all the $$ invested in that strut tower, I would have bought the bolt in kind, and spent the rest getting seat time to improve my skills. Again, I'm don't claim to be any more of an "expert" than any of you people, but it's this kind of "interpretation" that has given I.T. a bad reputation. I'd protest that car in a second (if it beat me) because there is no doubt in my mind that Topeka would toss it out. I'd love to see some examples of motor modifications that people think are legal.
What a riot that would be.
O.K....off my little soap box.
Mark
CFR member #164010

[Greg Amy]

...tell me you are joking![/b]

Nope. The jokes ended a couple of months ago. As I noted, the paradigm has completely changed. It USED to be "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't". The unwritten rule is now "if it says you can, then you bloody well can, and you best exploit that to its full potential."

Don't worry, you'll be numbed to it soon. I am; we have succumbed, and are working to turn it to our own advantages.

Kinda fun, actually.

You CAN"T be serious....CAN YOU???[/b]

Oh, yeah!

...there is no doubt in my mind that Topeka would toss it out.[/b]

Kinda cute isn't he? Precious, so innocent...

[gprodracer]

Greg,

Clearly there is much more going on here than I am aware of. There were some obvious issues between other posters, and officials earlier in this thread. Let me state that my opinion was not directed at you, or anyone else, and was not intended to offend anyone personally. I have moved to Production, and race in I.T. every now and then, so I am not aware of the "climate" of the class on a daily basis. We all see and "interpret" things differently, so maybe I am too "out of the loop" to pass judgement, but as an "old" man of 44, I still call 'em as I see 'em. The "cheating" issue has been going on long before I joined our club, but we used to be able to go to that competitor, tell them not to come back with that car until it was legal, and that would take care of the problem. It seems that things have changed since then..( 6 years or so ago).
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Good luck, and good racing to all of you!

Resistance is futile.......

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[Z3_GoCar]

Mark,

I suspect that Greg is still psychologically realing from his initial crusade aginst spherical bearings as suspension bushings. This may be in-spite of the fact that Greg's found something new in his suspension. So I suspect there's some recent history that your missing.

Greg,

Keep to victory, and chill and Congratulations on your string of victories.

James

[Knestis]

Seriously. Be careful what you ask for - or words to that effect...

It's not about cheating anymore. It's about a shift in paradigm and we deserve - collectively - everything we get from here on out. Every little allowance that gets made, either in terms of the codified rules or the way they get defined in parctice, tips us just that little bit further.

What will the spot/tack/whatever welds on those bushings look like, after they've evolved for 10 years? Whee!

K

[Greg Amy]

This may be in-spite of the fact that Greg's found something new in his suspension.[/b]

Nah, I wouldn't take advantage of that...would I?

Congratulations on your string of victories.[/b]

Thanks, man! I'm sure it's totally unrelated...

[lateapex911]

Greg,

Clearly there is much more going on here than I am aware of. There were some obvious issues between other posters, and officials earlier in this thread.
Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010
[/b]

I looked to see who the official was...hmmm...didn't see one. maybe you're talking about me. I'm not really an official. My role on the ITAC is to aid in the guidance of the category. THe ITAC does occasionally, write a rule, or attempt to clarify a rule. But we're not officials in the sense that we decide innocence and guilt...

As to the "issues", I'm at wits end.myself, LOL.

I think the question here isn't going to be answered effectively, because much information as to the specifics is missing...

And...
maybe the REAL question shouldn't be IS this legal, but SHOULD it be legal?

[JLawton]

Mark,
Don't take Greg's comments personal. He was around in the begining of IT when guys would slap a car together and go racing. Now people have a lot more invested in their cars and the need to win overpowers common sense when it comes to the rules. Guys are trying to push the rules interpretations waaaaay too far. Forgive his sarcasm. And no, he still doesn't have spherical bearings in his car........Dummy!!

As I have said in the past, if Kirk and Greg decide to turn to the dark side, we're all in trouble!!

[zracre]

I have seen worse...I would call it an interpretation of the rule...It does not look welded on the fender side though. If so many have a problem with it, send in your request for a rules clarification instead of the way the rule is written you need to prove it is NOT legal by whatever means...

[Jeremy Billiel]

Jeff - I think we should sneak into Greg's trailer one of these days and replace his "bushings" with "bearings." Oh and for good measure lets make sure to add a nice long "tack weld" to hold those suckers in!



Jeremy- Who is just playing with Greg...

[bldn10]

Bill. there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate. That may be a little or a lot.

"BTW, 'leveling off' the plate changes the attachment point, if you're going to use that arguement."

No, I don't think so. Obviously a plate that rests on top of the tower is legal and does not constitute a change in attachment point despite the fact that the point has been raised by the thickness of the plate. But what if you set your plate on top of the tower and the tower is rounded so that the plate is "high centered?" That's what I mean - you can build up a "foundation" so that the plate will have support all around. The attachment point remains where it would be had the tower been flat. Legal. Thinking about the one pictured, it is possible that that is all they did, in which case I'd say it is legal. But it appears that they went beyond that and significantly raised the tower. Indeed, the plate itself is not even flat. If the plate rests entirely on the added material rather than the being "located on existing chassis structure," it is illegal.

I ask all of you not to give up on sane interpretation of the Rules - if enough of us show that we are fed up w/ the situation, I think something can happen. After the SB rule change [Oh, excuse me, I mean Technical Bulletin], I appealed to SCCA's legal counsel on rules drafting and interpretation and I gathered that he was sympathetic. I think at some point he might step in and perhaps give a little seminar to the staff in Topeka on how rules should be interpreted. They obviously need some professional guidance.

[Bill Miller]

Greg, and others,

Please God, tell me you are joking! The rule clearly states that you can add material, not remove and
entirely replace the top of the strut tower, to say nothing of the reinforcement issue. See Dvaid Dewhursts,
and Shelbyracers comments from before. By your logic, then Davids idea of building a camber plate, and running it to the firewall, and back to the other strut tower constitutes a "legal" mod.. "it doesn't say how much, or little material I can use to mount my 1" steel camber plates, so I used enough to attach it to the other tower!!!" You CAN"T be serious....CAN YOU???
I am all for building a car to the limit of the rules, but for all the $$ invested in that strut tower, I would have bought the bolt in kind, and spent the rest getting seat time to improve my skills. Again, I'm don't claim to be any more of an "expert" than any of you people, but it's this kind of "interpretation" that has given I.T. a bad reputation. I'd protest that car in a second (if it beat me) because there is no doubt in my mind that Topeka would toss it out. I'd love to see some examples of motor modifications that people think are legal.
What a riot that would be.
O.K....off my little soap box.
Mark
CFR member #164010
[/b]

Mark,

I suggest that you take a stroll around the paddock at the next race you're at, and look at some of the IT cars. I'm willing to bet that you'll find several w/ similar designs to the one that's the subject of this discussion. That should give you plenty of opportunity to protest somebody's car.

And while I appreciate David's thoughts, his idea gets tossed on the 'performing a prohibited function' clause, provided there's a lower strut brace. You can't attach a strut brace to the fire wall.

[Bill Miller]

Bill. there IS a limit to how much material you can add - you can only add enough to be able to properly install a plate. That may be a little or a lot.

"BTW, 'leveling off' the plate changes the attachment point, if you're going to use that arguement."

No, I don't think so. Obviously a plate that rests on top of the tower is legal and does not constitute a change in attachment point despite the fact that the point has been raised by the thickness of the plate. But what if you set your plate on top of the tower and the tower is rounded so that the plate is "high centered?" That's what I mean - you can build up a "foundation" so that the plate will have support all around. The attachment point remains where it would be had the tower been flat. Legal. Thinking about the one pictured, it is possible that that is all they did, in which case I'd say it is legal. But it appears that they went beyond that and significantly raised the tower. Indeed, the plate itself is not even flat. If the plate rests entirely on the added material rather than the being "located on existing chassis structure," it is illegal.

I ask all of you not to give up on sane interpretation of the Rules - if enough of us show that we are fed up w/ the situation, I think something can happen. After the SB rule change [Oh, excuse me, I mean Technical Bulletin], I appealed to SCCA's legal counsel on rules drafting and interpretation and I gathered that he was sympathetic. I think at some point he might step in and perhaps give a little seminar to the staff in Topeka on how rules should be interpreted. They obviously need some professional guidance.
[/b]

We'll have to agree to disagree Bill. There's no restriction on the amount of material you can remove from, or add to the top of the strut tower to facilitate the installation of the plate. You use a subjective clause in your arguement 'significantly raised the tower'. Nothing in the rules that addresses it. If it says you can add or remove material from the top of the strut tower, you damn well can.

In your example of the 'high centered plate', you say that it's legal to build a foundation around it, to rest the flat plate on. Now, you're allowed to remove material from the top of the strut tower, which you would have to do if you wanted to get the travel needed to adjust the camber of the strut, via the plate. So now, you've removed the material that the plate was 'high centered' on, therefore having it no longer contact any of the original structure. In one parapgraph you say it's legal to do something, but in the next you say that what you claim is legal, is actually illegal.

We may not like the rule, or what it allows, but what's shown in that picture meets the letter of the rules. If that's not what you think we should be allowed to do (somebody else alluded to this earlier), then work to get it changed.

[ddewhurst]

***And while I appreciate David's thoughts, his idea gets tossed on the 'performing a prohibited function' clause, provided there's a lower strut brace. You can't attach a strut brace to the fire wall.***

Bill, please give me a friken break. There is no rule that spec's that I shall not weld my camber plate to the firewall. Just like you clame there is nothing illegal about using a weldment camber plate.

On the subject of the original camber plate picture , are you trying to tell me that the average know nothing Joe blow don't know that BSI with their 1/4 to 3/8 inch weldment camber plate is strengthing the strut tower/strut mounting location. You & Jake drinking the same stuff ?

[Bill Miller]

***And while I appreciate David's thoughts, his idea gets tossed on the 'performing a prohibited function' clause, provided there's a lower strut brace. You can't attach a strut brace to the fire wall.***

Bill, please give me a friken break. There is no rule that spec's that I shall not weld my camber plate to the firewall. Just like you clame there is nothing illegal about using a weldment camber plate.

On the subject of the original camber plate picture , are you trying to tell me that the average know nothing Joe blow don't know that BSI with their 1/4 to 3/8 inch weldment camber plate is strengthing the strut tower/strut mounting location. You & Jake drinking the same stuff ?
[/b]

Actually David, there is a rule that says where you will mount your camber plate.

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. Material may be added or removed
from the top of the strut tower to facilitate installation
of adjuster plate.[/b]

Seems pretty clear where you can mount them. The firewall is hardly the top of the mounting point. And let's be realistic here. By your issue w/ 1/4" or 3/8" welded camber plates strengthening (reinforcing) the tower/mounting location, you can claim that ANY camber plate that is a heavier gauge metal than the stock strut tower sheet metal is stregthening the tower/mounting location. That will hold for the bolt-in ones as well. By that definition, pretty much every camber plate out there is illegal.

Like I said, we may not like the rule, and may not think that it fits the intent of IT, but when they tell you that you can do something, you bloody well can. If you don't like it, pay your $250 and get a ruling, or asked to have the rule changed.

Maybe Stan or Bob (or one of the other CRB members) will comment.

[ddewhurst]

Bill, ya think the BSI guy is the only person that can read a rule book or do ya think the BSI guy is just trying the system. No one will argue that a hand held camber plate that is bolted to the strut tower is not a camber plate no matter how thick it is. & NO a hand held 3/8 inch bolt on camber plate WILL NOT strengthen the strut tower location or the strut tower as will the weldment that BSI calls a camber plate. Do ya want me to go into detail ? Bill, your a rather educated person & it is amazing that you'll argue to support BSI. Do they by chance do work on grocery getters on a regular basis.

Mark Coffin, do you care to add your 2 cents on the camber plate ?

Bill, my welded camber is welded to the top of the strut towers & it's also welded to the firewall. The friken S.B. rule has opened things up quite a bit. As Greg & K. stated it's a whle new game. There are some off the shelf S.B. assemblys for the front of a 1st gen RX-7 that don't require welding.

[gprodracer]

Boy, do some people get testy when another OPINION gets voiced!
Bill Miller, I have no clue who you are either, but your "walk thru the paddock so you can find cars to protest" quote is priceless! When you don't have a logical, intelligent argument to present, lets try to attack the others with (lame) attempts to make him look bad. I personally used to love it when people protested me, so I could prove them wrong (you could ask Fowler from OPM, or Stu from BSI about those days.. hell, back then people from Denver would come and do random checks on the top four in each class..Funny how about 60% of us ALWAYS passed thru the teardowns, while many an illegal part went home to Denver). So, to respond to your comment about several cars with the same plate set up, please see my comment about "just because everyone else is doing it, does not make it legal!!" So yes, I would spend my $25 to see what Topeka has to say about it. We can all take words out of context to try to prove our point.
Jake, my apologies for calling you an "official". I just knew that there was more going on than I was aware of, and didn't want this discussion, to get personal. The bottom line for me as the rule is written, is that you are only allowed to remove enough material as to "facillitate the installation of the camber plates.. conversely, you are only allowed to "add" material to fascillitate the installation also, (IE add a tab so the bolt holes line up). The example shown was way beyond how the rule is written in its present form.
I've made my last points, but I'll monitor this thread for the humor and sarcasm factors.
Again there are more personal issues going on here that I know (or care to know about) , so I don't want to get dragged into.
I haven't taken any of this personally, just stated my opinion, but if you want to make it personal, feel free to PM me.. I'm not hard to find.
Evan, how was Sebring last weekend..Good turnout??

Mark Larson
CFR Member #164010

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am a little sick of the SB issue being thrown around as some sort of pandoras box. The rule was grey and the CRB told us what the intent was, and we suggested reworking the rule. They took the suggestion. We wanted it to be a 'if it says you can, then you bloody well can' issue instead of two polarized sides.

As far as the tack welding - it was decided that if you are going to allow it, then why make it cost prohibitive to do it? No other function may be served. Get creative and get protested. Simple. It's your money.

A camber plate welded to the strut tower AND to the firewall is CLEARLY reinforcing the chassis. CLEARLY.
AB