| Silver Bullet 02 | 01-26-2004 01:17 PM |
Whiteline Antilift Kit ILLEGAL in SM
�
�
I emailed Doug Gill at SCCA headquaters and he told me that anything that repositions a subframe, such as the Whiteline ALK or the Perrin PSRS is illegal in SM.
I'm pretty sure I've seen posts here that indicate the contrary. Does anyone have evidence that would say that the ALK is legal in SM?
Here's Doug's email...
[I] Hi, Tony,
For 2004, Section 16.1.E (was 18.1.E in 2003) added a definition. It now reads:
"Suspension components are unrestricted as long as they use the original attachment point. For the purposes of this rule, 'suspension' is defined as any item that is designed to move when a wheel is deflected vertically. This includes shocks and struts, control arms, steering knuckles, uprights, etc., but not tie rods, steering racks and subframes, In addition, shock absorber/strut upper mounts are to be considered suspension components."
Also, 16.1.H was added and says:
"Subframe bushings may be replaced with bushings of any material as long as they fit the original location. Offset bushings may not be used."
I don't see any way you're allowed to reposition the subframe.The rule of thumb is, "If it doesn't say you can, you can't." It's not unrestricted by 16.1.E and the intent of 16.1.H is not to relocate the subframe. These additions were to keep the subframe in it's factory original location.
I don't think this is what you wanted to hear, but I hope it helps.
- Doug
Doug Gill
SCCA Solo Technical Manager
1-800-770-2055
785-232-7215 fax
[email][email�protected][/email]
[email][email�protected][/email] [I]
I'm pretty sure I've seen posts here that indicate the contrary. Does anyone have evidence that would say that the ALK is legal in SM?
Here's Doug's email...
[I] Hi, Tony,
For 2004, Section 16.1.E (was 18.1.E in 2003) added a definition. It now reads:
"Suspension components are unrestricted as long as they use the original attachment point. For the purposes of this rule, 'suspension' is defined as any item that is designed to move when a wheel is deflected vertically. This includes shocks and struts, control arms, steering knuckles, uprights, etc., but not tie rods, steering racks and subframes, In addition, shock absorber/strut upper mounts are to be considered suspension components."
Also, 16.1.H was added and says:
"Subframe bushings may be replaced with bushings of any material as long as they fit the original location. Offset bushings may not be used."
I don't see any way you're allowed to reposition the subframe.The rule of thumb is, "If it doesn't say you can, you can't." It's not unrestricted by 16.1.E and the intent of 16.1.H is not to relocate the subframe. These additions were to keep the subframe in it's factory original location.
I don't think this is what you wanted to hear, but I hope it helps.
- Doug
Doug Gill
SCCA Solo Technical Manager
1-800-770-2055
785-232-7215 fax
[email][email�protected][/email]
[email][email�protected][/email] [I]
| MNbiker | 01-26-2004 01:43 PM |
Re: Whiteline Antilift Kit ILLEGAL in SM
�
�
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Silver Bullet 02 [/i]
[B]Also, 16.1.H was added and says:
"Subframe bushings may be replaced with bushings of any material as long as they fit the original location. Offset bushings may not be used."[/B][/QUOTE]
This language would indicate that even the Whiteline offset bushings (KCA375) are illegal. Does anyone know if this same language was added to the STX rules for 2004?
-Steve
p.s. I'm sure glad I haven't installed those KCA375 bushings sitting on my workbench yet! Looks like I may have to go with camber/caster plates after all.:(
[B]Also, 16.1.H was added and says:
"Subframe bushings may be replaced with bushings of any material as long as they fit the original location. Offset bushings may not be used."[/B][/QUOTE]
This language would indicate that even the Whiteline offset bushings (KCA375) are illegal. Does anyone know if this same language was added to the STX rules for 2004?
-Steve
p.s. I'm sure glad I haven't installed those KCA375 bushings sitting on my workbench yet! Looks like I may have to go with camber/caster plates after all.:(
| RebelINS | 01-26-2004 01:47 PM |
That's exactly what I was just about to post. I remember people saying that those bushing are legal for STX, and I was going to order some this spring.
-Wes
-Wes
| TyrannoSullyRex | 01-26-2004 01:59 PM |
I don't understand, he defines what suspension components are then says you can't change the bushings of a subframe?
When did the lower control arm of a car become a subframe? Is the metal portion that contains the bushing considered a subframe? There is also an argument to be made that the original suspension mounting points [i]are[/i] being used (the two bolts that secure the bushing to the frame) and it's free to change.
When did the lower control arm of a car become a subframe? Is the metal portion that contains the bushing considered a subframe? There is also an argument to be made that the original suspension mounting points [i]are[/i] being used (the two bolts that secure the bushing to the frame) and it's free to change.
| dwx | 01-26-2004 02:34 PM |
That's not the point he's asking about. You have to put in spacers to make the original subframe fit back on the car because the whiteline ALK drops the control arm down and it's in the way of the original attachment. So Whiteline gives you spacers to use throughout the U-frame to make it fit again.
There is another rule he didn't quote which states:
[quote]
18.1.F Subframe connectors are allowed, but each connector must be attached individually without any lateral components attaching the two longitudinal frame rails. Subframe connectors may be bolted or welded
[/quote]
If subframe "connectors" are free then how you connect that subframe onto the car shouldn't be a problem. I don't know if they tossed that out in the new rulebook. There is also the "spirit of SM" rule which is:
[quote]
Any minor modification, intended to allow or facilitate any allowed modification, is permitted as long as it does not provide any intrinsic performance benefit in and of itself, does not provide a weight reduction of more than 1 lb., and is not explicitly prohibited elsewhere within these rules. This rule is intended to allow minor notching, bending, clearancing, grinding; the drilling of holes; affixing, relocating, or strengthening of brackets; removal of small parts, and similar operations performed in order to facilitate the installation of allowed parts or modifications.
[/quote]
I think it falls under that as well. I don't think there is any way you would be protested for having it. And if putting the whiteline spacers in there makes it illegal, you could just notch out the whole subframe where it passes by the transverse bushing, and then it would be illegal, and weigh less...
There is another rule he didn't quote which states:
[quote]
18.1.F Subframe connectors are allowed, but each connector must be attached individually without any lateral components attaching the two longitudinal frame rails. Subframe connectors may be bolted or welded
[/quote]
If subframe "connectors" are free then how you connect that subframe onto the car shouldn't be a problem. I don't know if they tossed that out in the new rulebook. There is also the "spirit of SM" rule which is:
[quote]
Any minor modification, intended to allow or facilitate any allowed modification, is permitted as long as it does not provide any intrinsic performance benefit in and of itself, does not provide a weight reduction of more than 1 lb., and is not explicitly prohibited elsewhere within these rules. This rule is intended to allow minor notching, bending, clearancing, grinding; the drilling of holes; affixing, relocating, or strengthening of brackets; removal of small parts, and similar operations performed in order to facilitate the installation of allowed parts or modifications.
[/quote]
I think it falls under that as well. I don't think there is any way you would be protested for having it. And if putting the whiteline spacers in there makes it illegal, you could just notch out the whole subframe where it passes by the transverse bushing, and then it would be illegal, and weigh less...
| Silver Bullet 02 | 01-26-2004 02:47 PM |
Good points. I sent your thoughts to Doug. Hopefully you are right but I want to get this one worked out for good at the top so I don't have to deal with it after its installed. If they don't okay it there then I'll just leave my car as is and not install the Perrin PSRS
| Silver Bullet 02 | 01-26-2004 04:19 PM |
Doug's thoughts on one of the posts above...
Subframe connectors are basically longitudinal frame-rails that tie the front and rear subframes together, one on the left side and one on the right - not the connection of the subframe to the frame/unibody. This is very common for Camaro/Firebird and Mustang cars (which they cannot use in Street Prepared). So the definition is being changed to apply to things like the subframe bolts. If not, then why the reference to lateral components?
Before 16.1.O can be applied, you have to start with a legal modification in and of itself. To finish 16.1.O, let's add the rest of it:
"Competitors are strongly cautioned to make the minimum amount of modification required to affix a given part, and to not make unduly tortured interpretations of this rule. Modifications to the firewall in order to allow for increased engine setback, and any modification that changes the location of a suspension pickup point, are explicitly forbidden."
Calling the "connection" of the subframe to the frame/unibody "subframe connectors" is a tortured interpretation. Also, you need the shims/spacers to relocate the subframe because you've changed the suspension pickup points, which 16.1.O specifically disallows.
Also 16.3.A gives a 2nd warning about rule interpretations:
"Due to the inherent creative nature of this category of classes and the resulting member questions about the intent and interpretation of the rules, the SEB will issue clarifying Tech Bulletins in SportsCar magazine on an as-needed basis. Car constructors are cautioned against overly creative or tortured interpretations of these rules. When in question, contact the SCCA National Office for a clarification."
Subframe connectors are basically longitudinal frame-rails that tie the front and rear subframes together, one on the left side and one on the right - not the connection of the subframe to the frame/unibody. This is very common for Camaro/Firebird and Mustang cars (which they cannot use in Street Prepared). So the definition is being changed to apply to things like the subframe bolts. If not, then why the reference to lateral components?
Before 16.1.O can be applied, you have to start with a legal modification in and of itself. To finish 16.1.O, let's add the rest of it:
"Competitors are strongly cautioned to make the minimum amount of modification required to affix a given part, and to not make unduly tortured interpretations of this rule. Modifications to the firewall in order to allow for increased engine setback, and any modification that changes the location of a suspension pickup point, are explicitly forbidden."
Calling the "connection" of the subframe to the frame/unibody "subframe connectors" is a tortured interpretation. Also, you need the shims/spacers to relocate the subframe because you've changed the suspension pickup points, which 16.1.O specifically disallows.
Also 16.3.A gives a 2nd warning about rule interpretations:
"Due to the inherent creative nature of this category of classes and the resulting member questions about the intent and interpretation of the rules, the SEB will issue clarifying Tech Bulletins in SportsCar magazine on an as-needed basis. Car constructors are cautioned against overly creative or tortured interpretations of these rules. When in question, contact the SCCA National Office for a clarification."
| dwx | 01-26-2004 04:22 PM |
Ok I went back and re-read the first post. What they did was change the rule halfway through the season last year that made them legal, and then went back and redefined the rule into something that makes them not legal again for 2004. Of course almost no one has the 2004 rulebook so it's a little hard to pick up on that. Let me find the fastrack that has the rule change last year. June 2003 FasTrack had a tech bulletin which immediately changed the suspension rule to read:
"Suspension components are unrestricted as long as they use the original chassis attachment points"
In the 2004 rule book they went back and omitted the word "chassis". So all those SM guys running the ALKs might as well sell them. :)
I think some people got scared by the "chassis" word because it allows someone to fabricate something completely different than stock that only attaches to the stock points.
"Suspension components are unrestricted as long as they use the original chassis attachment points"
In the 2004 rule book they went back and omitted the word "chassis". So all those SM guys running the ALKs might as well sell them. :)
I think some people got scared by the "chassis" word because it allows someone to fabricate something completely different than stock that only attaches to the stock points.
| ChrisW | 01-26-2004 04:51 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] This language would indicate that even the Whiteline offset bushings (KCA375) are illegal. Does anyone know if this same language was added to the STX rules for 2004?
-Steve
p.s. I'm sure glad I haven't installed those KCA375 bushings sitting on my workbench yet! Looks like I may have to go with camber/caster plates after all.:( [/B][/QUOTE]
The whiteline offset bushing your reffering to is for the lower control arm, not the subframe.
Hmm... I guess if you could install the ALK without the spacers it would be technically legal.
[B] This language would indicate that even the Whiteline offset bushings (KCA375) are illegal. Does anyone know if this same language was added to the STX rules for 2004?
-Steve
p.s. I'm sure glad I haven't installed those KCA375 bushings sitting on my workbench yet! Looks like I may have to go with camber/caster plates after all.:( [/B][/QUOTE]
The whiteline offset bushing your reffering to is for the lower control arm, not the subframe.
Hmm... I guess if you could install the ALK without the spacers it would be technically legal.
| Kostamojen | 01-26-2004 04:56 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW [/i]
[B]The whiteline offset bushing your reffering to is for the lower control arm, not the subframe.
Hmm... I guess if you could install the ALK without the spacers it would be technically legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
Which means that it would be legal for GC's, but not for GDA/GDB's...
[B]The whiteline offset bushing your reffering to is for the lower control arm, not the subframe.
Hmm... I guess if you could install the ALK without the spacers it would be technically legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
Which means that it would be legal for GC's, but not for GDA/GDB's...
| Strepto | 01-26-2004 05:25 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Silver Bullet 02 [/i]
[B]...If not, then why the reference to lateral components?[/B][/QUOTE]
The reference to the lateral compnents means that you can't put a bar that crosses from one side to the other. I don't know for mustangs, but for f-bodies they make some nice cross-bracing to make the chasis even stiffer.
[img]http://www.lgmotorsports.com/images/g2-xbrace.gif[/img]
[B]...If not, then why the reference to lateral components?[/B][/QUOTE]
The reference to the lateral compnents means that you can't put a bar that crosses from one side to the other. I don't know for mustangs, but for f-bodies they make some nice cross-bracing to make the chasis even stiffer.
[img]http://www.lgmotorsports.com/images/g2-xbrace.gif[/img]
| Patrick Olsen | 01-27-2004 12:02 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by dwx [/i]
[B]In the 2004 rule book they went back and omitted the word "chassis". So all those SM guys running the ALKs might as well sell them. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless, of course, you're driving an inherently superior GC Impreza or a Legacy ;) , neither of which has a need for a band-aid subframe brace (as Kostamojen already said).
I'll be keeping my ALK in there. Of course, I could remove it and then see if the WRXs can catch me, but I doubt it would make enough of a difference. :devil:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]FSD by 2.81sec yesterday[/i] :banana:
[url]http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/1-25-04.pdf[/url]
[B]In the 2004 rule book they went back and omitted the word "chassis". So all those SM guys running the ALKs might as well sell them. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Unless, of course, you're driving an inherently superior GC Impreza or a Legacy ;) , neither of which has a need for a band-aid subframe brace (as Kostamojen already said).
I'll be keeping my ALK in there. Of course, I could remove it and then see if the WRXs can catch me, but I doubt it would make enough of a difference. :devil:
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
[i]FSD by 2.81sec yesterday[/i] :banana:
[url]http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/1-25-04.pdf[/url]
| mav1c | 01-27-2004 07:46 AM |
I have an ALK and run in SM. I will continue to do so in our local series. I doubt anyone will care since I'm not competitive enough to be a threat to the top cars. I do it just for fun anyway. :)
| MNbiker | 01-27-2004 08:10 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChrisW [/i]
[B]The whiteline offset bushing your reffering to is for the lower control arm, not the subframe.
Hmm... I guess if you could install the ALK without the spacers it would be technically legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
Chris,
You're right, the KCA 375 bushings would be legal under this rule:
"Suspension bushings may be replaced with bushings of any
materials (except metal) as long as they fit in the original location.
Offset bushings may be used. " :)
Unfortunately, it looks like ALK is again illegal...:(
-Steve
[B]The whiteline offset bushing your reffering to is for the lower control arm, not the subframe.
Hmm... I guess if you could install the ALK without the spacers it would be technically legal. [/B][/QUOTE]
Chris,
You're right, the KCA 375 bushings would be legal under this rule:
"Suspension bushings may be replaced with bushings of any
materials (except metal) as long as they fit in the original location.
Offset bushings may be used. " :)
Unfortunately, it looks like ALK is again illegal...:(
-Steve
| ScreaminFast | 01-27-2004 09:42 AM |
that u-shaped piece isn't really a subframe...more so a crash protector. It doesn't come stock on the STi RA's or any STi's in Japan. Infact the Whiteline race ALK doesn't even come with the spacers for that bar, so I won't be running it at all this year.
I too agree that the ALK isn't really modifying the subframe.
I too agree that the ALK isn't really modifying the subframe.
| ChrisW | 01-27-2004 10:12 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MNbiker[/i]
[B] Chris,
You're right, the KCA 375 bushings would be legal under this rule:
"Suspension bushings may be replaced with bushings of any
materials (except metal) as long as they fit in the original location.
Offset bushings may be used. " :)
Unfortunately, it looks like ALK is again illegal...:(
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
true...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen[/i]
[B] Which means that it would be legal for GC's, but not for GDA/GDB's... [/B][/QUOTE]
so what you need to do is get a GC body and do an STI driveline conversion, then it's perfectly legal :banana:
[B] Chris,
You're right, the KCA 375 bushings would be legal under this rule:
"Suspension bushings may be replaced with bushings of any
materials (except metal) as long as they fit in the original location.
Offset bushings may be used. " :)
Unfortunately, it looks like ALK is again illegal...:(
-Steve [/B][/QUOTE]
true...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen[/i]
[B] Which means that it would be legal for GC's, but not for GDA/GDB's... [/B][/QUOTE]
so what you need to do is get a GC body and do an STI driveline conversion, then it's perfectly legal :banana:
| MNbiker | 01-27-2004 10:43 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ScreaminFast [/i]
[B]that u-shaped piece isn't really a subframe...[/B][/QUOTE]
The Subaru Field Service Manual (the official document for such definitions) calls the piece a "Sub frame".
-Steve
[B]that u-shaped piece isn't really a subframe...[/B][/QUOTE]
The Subaru Field Service Manual (the official document for such definitions) calls the piece a "Sub frame".
-Steve
| Kostamojen | 01-27-2004 08:15 PM |
If you guys are so worried about illegality, just get the STI bushing non-alk ones like from the OEM suspension kit (with the control arms) like I did :p They still make a big difference, just not so much with the caster.
| KC | 01-28-2004 09:03 AM |
OK, here's the deal.... Doug, while he's the TD for SCCA, doesn't have the final word in if they're legal or illegal.
The SEB (Solo Events Board) does. They're the ones that have the final say over the rules. Those that propose the rules, the SMAC (Street-Mod Advosory committe) must present the rules to the SEB and they then give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
Your best bet would be to contact the SMAC and ask THEM. That committee is made up of many SM competitors and someone probably approached them on this subject already.. if they were legal last year, then they should be legal this year. There have been times words mistakenly get ommitted from the rule book... so that's really your best course of action. (Especially if ytou have a fastrack to back you up with the PROPER wording.)
If they are in fact illegal, and you think they should be allowed, write them a letter stating why.
--kC
The SEB (Solo Events Board) does. They're the ones that have the final say over the rules. Those that propose the rules, the SMAC (Street-Mod Advosory committe) must present the rules to the SEB and they then give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
Your best bet would be to contact the SMAC and ask THEM. That committee is made up of many SM competitors and someone probably approached them on this subject already.. if they were legal last year, then they should be legal this year. There have been times words mistakenly get ommitted from the rule book... so that's really your best course of action. (Especially if ytou have a fastrack to back you up with the PROPER wording.)
If they are in fact illegal, and you think they should be allowed, write them a letter stating why.
--kC
| Davenow | 01-28-2004 10:29 AM |
Looks like STI bushings for me :)
They are cheaper anyway. I wasnt sure where I was going to come up with the ALK funds :lol:
They are cheaper anyway. I wasnt sure where I was going to come up with the ALK funds :lol:
| Silver Bullet 02 | 01-28-2004 12:29 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]OK, here's the deal.... Doug, while he's the TD for SCCA, doesn't have the final word in if they're legal or illegal.
The SEB (Solo Events Board) does. They're the ones that have the final say over the rules. Those that propose the rules, the SMAC (Street-Mod Advosory committe) must present the rules to the SEB and they then give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
Your best bet would be to contact the SMAC and ask THEM. That committee is made up of many SM competitors and someone probably approached them on this subject already.. if they were legal last year, then they should be legal this year. There have been times words mistakenly get ommitted from the rule book... so that's really your best course of action. (Especially if ytou have a fastrack to back you up with the PROPER wording.)
If they are in fact illegal, and you think they should be allowed, write them a letter stating why.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Doug said he would contact Dennis Grant and talk it over. I can also ask them to make a ruling specific to this mod which I will do if it is deemed illegal due to the specific wording they now have.
[B]OK, here's the deal.... Doug, while he's the TD for SCCA, doesn't have the final word in if they're legal or illegal.
The SEB (Solo Events Board) does. They're the ones that have the final say over the rules. Those that propose the rules, the SMAC (Street-Mod Advosory committe) must present the rules to the SEB and they then give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
Your best bet would be to contact the SMAC and ask THEM. That committee is made up of many SM competitors and someone probably approached them on this subject already.. if they were legal last year, then they should be legal this year. There have been times words mistakenly get ommitted from the rule book... so that's really your best course of action. (Especially if ytou have a fastrack to back you up with the PROPER wording.)
If they are in fact illegal, and you think they should be allowed, write them a letter stating why.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Doug said he would contact Dennis Grant and talk it over. I can also ask them to make a ruling specific to this mod which I will do if it is deemed illegal due to the specific wording they now have.
| KC | 01-28-2004 12:48 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Silver Bullet 02 [/i]
[B]Doug said he would contact Dennis Grant and talk it over. I can also ask them to make a ruling specific to this mod which I will do if it is deemed illegal due to the specific wording they now have. [/B][/QUOTE]If you do that, then it must apply to all cars. If it only benefits one moddel of car, then it's not going to be looked upon that favorably.
Just a heads up. :)
[B]Doug said he would contact Dennis Grant and talk it over. I can also ask them to make a ruling specific to this mod which I will do if it is deemed illegal due to the specific wording they now have. [/B][/QUOTE]If you do that, then it must apply to all cars. If it only benefits one moddel of car, then it's not going to be looked upon that favorably.
Just a heads up. :)
| Silver Bullet 02 | 01-28-2004 02:49 PM |
I've seen posts by Dennis Grant that imply that he reads the heart of the rule to mean you can do whatever you want as long as you use the original mounting holes. Seems that there is a pretty big disconnect among the powers within SCCA. It doesn't really matter to me either way. I just don't want to install a part that could cause me problems at a national tour or regional event. Hopefully this can be put to bed soon. From the looks of things, my guess is that the ALK and the PSRS from Perrin will both be deemed illegal mods.
| KC | 02-05-2004 11:32 AM |
About Doug Gill... take what he says with a grain of salt.
From the SCCA Forums from Andy Hollis who is on the SEB:
-----------------------------------------------------
Doug is the National office Tech guy for Solo. But he does not make final rules interpretations. He is the liason to the SEB, who is the final authority on such matters.
--Andy
-----------------------------------------------------
What this means is it doens't matter what Dougs intrepretation of the rules is, when it comes down to it at the event, will hold no weight in a protest. (The ALK just may be legal in SM) You need to contact the SMAC (Street Mod Advisory Committee)
This is made so that no one person can enact new rules or change them on a whim and why it's the SEB that makes the final determination of rules based on what the other advisory committees suggest.
From the SCCA Forums from Andy Hollis who is on the SEB:
-----------------------------------------------------
Doug is the National office Tech guy for Solo. But he does not make final rules interpretations. He is the liason to the SEB, who is the final authority on such matters.
--Andy
-----------------------------------------------------
What this means is it doens't matter what Dougs intrepretation of the rules is, when it comes down to it at the event, will hold no weight in a protest. (The ALK just may be legal in SM) You need to contact the SMAC (Street Mod Advisory Committee)
This is made so that no one person can enact new rules or change them on a whim and why it's the SEB that makes the final determination of rules based on what the other advisory committees suggest.
| Silver Bullet 02 | 02-05-2004 11:38 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]About Doug Gill... take what he says with a grain of salt.
From the SCCA Forums from Andy Hollis who is on the SEB:
-----------------------------------------------------
Doug is the National office Tech guy for Solo. But he does not make final rules interpretations. He is the liason to the SEB, who is the final authority on such matters.
--Andy
-----------------------------------------------------
What this means is it doens't matter what Dougs intrepretation of the rules is, when it comes down to it at the event, will hold no weight in a protest. (The ALK just may be legal in SM) You need to contact the SMAC (Street Mod Advisory Committee)
This is made so that no one person can enact new rules or change them on a whim and why it's the SEB that makes the final determination of rules based on what the other advisory committees suggest. [/B][/QUOTE]
Doug told me that he was going to talk to Dennis Grant about it who I assume is on or the head of the SMAC. I just emailed Doug again yesterday and he said he was going to the SCCA national convention and would check into it for me.
Too bad it takes so long to figure out a simple matter like this.
By the way, do you have any contact information for the SMAC???
[B]About Doug Gill... take what he says with a grain of salt.
From the SCCA Forums from Andy Hollis who is on the SEB:
-----------------------------------------------------
Doug is the National office Tech guy for Solo. But he does not make final rules interpretations. He is the liason to the SEB, who is the final authority on such matters.
--Andy
-----------------------------------------------------
What this means is it doens't matter what Dougs intrepretation of the rules is, when it comes down to it at the event, will hold no weight in a protest. (The ALK just may be legal in SM) You need to contact the SMAC (Street Mod Advisory Committee)
This is made so that no one person can enact new rules or change them on a whim and why it's the SEB that makes the final determination of rules based on what the other advisory committees suggest. [/B][/QUOTE]
Doug told me that he was going to talk to Dennis Grant about it who I assume is on or the head of the SMAC. I just emailed Doug again yesterday and he said he was going to the SCCA national convention and would check into it for me.
Too bad it takes so long to figure out a simple matter like this.
By the way, do you have any contact information for the SMAC???
| KC | 02-05-2004 12:06 PM |
Here are the various people on the actual committees, but no links to e-mail or whatnot. Many of those people listed are on various internet messageboards like sccaforums.com, or the evolist at yahoo groups and can be reached through there.
[url]http://www.scca.org/interactive/boards.html[/url]
--kC
[url]http://www.scca.org/interactive/boards.html[/url]
--kC
| dwx | 02-05-2004 01:04 PM |
According to the guys on the SMAC, the ALK is likely a legal item. Unfortunately something was lost in translation between them and the SEB, and the rules in the 2004 rule book aren't written that way. Dennis Grant wants suspension to be unlimited as long as it attaches to the original [B]chassis[/B] mounting points, that's why things were changed last year. Basically you could connect anything together you wanted as long as it used stock OEM chassis points. For instance you could modify your WRX spindles to give you more caster or camber or whatever. Alot of guys don't want that, as it just makes the class more $$$ as people come up with crazy suspension designs.
This is basically from Dennis Grant's mouth when I asked about the rule changes and the legality of the ALK on the STU (SM) yahoo group, this regarded offset bushings and their legality, and they are legal for suspension stuff. Most of the guys on the STU list however, would consider the ALK illegal at this point in time.
All I can say is this is likely not the last you'll hear of this stuff. I took off my ALK last night for the Atlanta Pro next week because as the rule is written in the 2004 rulebook, it would not be legal.
[quote]
> Be careful with offset bushings that the percentage
> (ratio) of metal to bushing material remains the same.
> Frequently manufacturers do not really care, but the rules
> do.
[B]We don't. Suspension that fits the OEM chassis mount points
is unlimited.[/B]
DG
[/quote]
This is basically from Dennis Grant's mouth when I asked about the rule changes and the legality of the ALK on the STU (SM) yahoo group, this regarded offset bushings and their legality, and they are legal for suspension stuff. Most of the guys on the STU list however, would consider the ALK illegal at this point in time.
All I can say is this is likely not the last you'll hear of this stuff. I took off my ALK last night for the Atlanta Pro next week because as the rule is written in the 2004 rulebook, it would not be legal.
[quote]
> Be careful with offset bushings that the percentage
> (ratio) of metal to bushing material remains the same.
> Frequently manufacturers do not really care, but the rules
> do.
[B]We don't. Suspension that fits the OEM chassis mount points
is unlimited.[/B]
DG
[/quote]
| Silver Bullet 02 | 02-05-2004 04:35 PM |
Per Dennis Grant who is part of the SMAC...
[I]Subframe bushings may be replaced, but not offset.
Offsets can be in the x, y, and z axis - so shimming a
subframe down is not allowed.
The rules do not differnetiate between a subframe that
carries suspension mount points and one that does not.
Note that Doug asks the SMAC before he answers these
letters, so when Doug answers, he has usually talked to me about it.
DG[I]
So the ALK and the PSRS are both confirmed illegal in SM by both Doug Gill and Dennis Grant.
His second sentence seems to contridict itself though. I don't really get what he is saying there. Anyway... I have a Perrin PSRS for cheap if anyone is interested in buying it from me.
[I]Subframe bushings may be replaced, but not offset.
Offsets can be in the x, y, and z axis - so shimming a
subframe down is not allowed.
The rules do not differnetiate between a subframe that
carries suspension mount points and one that does not.
Note that Doug asks the SMAC before he answers these
letters, so when Doug answers, he has usually talked to me about it.
DG[I]
So the ALK and the PSRS are both confirmed illegal in SM by both Doug Gill and Dennis Grant.
His second sentence seems to contridict itself though. I don't really get what he is saying there. Anyway... I have a Perrin PSRS for cheap if anyone is interested in buying it from me.
| dwx | 02-05-2004 07:34 PM |
I don't really care about the subframe, that's not my concern. You could notch out the subframe to make the alk fit and that would be covered under other SM rules. I bet it would even weigh less than a pound.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét