Strut tower braces

[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.

[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!!
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???

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.

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

[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.

[dickita15]

I may now "race" in peace.

glad to help.

[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.


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.

https://improvedtouring.com...ight=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.

[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.

https://improvedtouring.com...ight=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)