Sway Bars w/ Whiteline RLCA Relo Brackets?

[DILYSI Dave]

And THIS is why I don't screw around with SCCA autoX anymore . . .

Terry's tizzy aside, he did something illegal, several people told him it was illegal, he disagreed and asked for an official clarification, and it was clarified as illegal. We've ALSO said - "Hmm, should that be illegal? Let's ask the members." Even asked Terry himself to come up with wording to put in front of the membership. It's right there in the same FasTrack that answered his inquiry -

The SPAC and SEB would like member feedback as regards allowing alternate differential covers, either (1) for all cars via adding a new 15.10.CC: “Differential covers and attaching hardware may be replaced.” or (2) only for solid axle cars via adding a new 15.8.I.6: “Differential covers and attaching hardware may be replaced.”

Nobody said that the diff cover is a performance advantage. Just said that there's not an allowance to change it. And the way the rules work is that if it doesn't say you can change a part, then you can't. In fact, despite performance being sited several times, in quotes even, in Terry's rant, here is what the tech bulletin said -

There is no allowance to replace the differential cover. Modifications to the original differential cover are permitted, but replacing the entire differential cover would be outside the scope of the current allowance, which is intended to permit any method of attachment, not wholesale replacement of parts to which the attachment is made.

He's right - sometimes things take too long. Some of the minutia is frustrating, and leads to a rulebook that can be cumbersome. Part of that though is that it is a member driven club. The upside is that you don't get surprised with rule changes. The downside is that it takes time to have that exchange with the members. And despite the "the rules change every 4 weeks" rant, the reality is that outside of extraordinary circumstances, the rules change once a year at most. We send proposed rule changes for the coming year to the elected Board of Directors typically in November, where they can then choose to approve them or not. FasTracks comes out once a month because we want to have good communication with the membership. Not because we change the rules monthly.

And despite ALL OF THAT, Terry competed in a car at the national level that was illegal, and nobody gave him shit about it. It's hardly the weenie convention that is being portrayed. Lots of people looked at the car, decided "well, that's illegal, but he didn't beat me because of an illegal watts link - he beat me because he out-drove me" and let it go. And if Terry chose to compete this year with the same parts, I'm betting the same would happen again - particularly with the a proposal on the table to specifically make him legal.

 

[2008 V6]

I honestly hope that some other organization can someday take up the banner for "lost autocrossers" that are tired of this SCCA rules nonsense, like NASA has done so well with ex-SCCA Club Racers. Sam, you can argue more SCCA Solo rules here until you are blue in the face, but only about 6 or 8 people on this forum will even know or care. I'm no longer one of them.


Your not the first to be fed-up with SCCA or other racing organizations – Most are a business and people who benefit will alter things accordingly when EGO & $$$$$$$$$$$ are involved. Capitalism at it’s worst. I am a capitalist & believe in the capitalist system.
I won’t comment anymore on flame wars. Can’t seem to get away from them. Not beneficial to anyone’s education. Spoken by a poor un-educated flake who can't find his arse with both hands.
Adder - I was speaking about myself & nobody else by the way. no insult intended

 

[modernbeat]

Dave, I take exception to your description of the warnings, and to your reading of the rules.

First, the only person that we spoke to that thought the Whiteline Watts was illegal, was Sam. Nobody else in the ESP group at Nationals said anything to us about it.

Next, the rule says unlimited, and then has a restriction. The only restriction is not to remove welded on parts of the chassis. To me that says removing bolt-on parts of the chassis is acceptable because if it wasn't, then the rules would say so. And if it doesn't say it, then it's acceptable because the mounting is unlimited. If the limit was no removal of stock parts at all, then the rule should say that instead of only calling out welded on parts.

I was made aware of some of the discussions regarding this issue and the fact that the SEB wasn't even aware of the separate stick-axle rules was astounding. The lack of logic in their decision was worse.

 

[DILYSI Dave]

I know there was discussion / debate on the legality at least 4 months ago, over in the sandbox.

I agree that there is certainly room to see the issue either way. I can just as easily argue one side as the other. It's unclear, and thus needed to be clarified. I feel bad that you guys came out on the bad side of a clarification, but I also don't see where that justifies a tirade. It was a hole in the rules, you found it, and there is a proposal on the table to close the hole and let you keep running the Whiteline. I just don't see why that justifies a "take my toys and go home" response.

 

[modernbeat]

...I just don't see why that justifies a "take my toys and go home" response.

In my case, 26 years off-and-on of take-backs, last minute clarifications, protected groups, protected cars and ever present AC/SEB/CRB/BOD members with conflicts of interests. Rules that can not be defended by logic (can't remove steering wheel airbags, but seat airbag removal is OK in ST). And acting in the exact opposite of the new motto, Make it easy, make it fun, in a number of instances, like banning cheap and easy motorcycle engines in D-Mod in favor of expensive and difficult to maintain Cosworth engines.

I'm sure Terry has his own decade long list of grievances.

But really, we'd LOVE to autocross with the SCCA. It's just so maddening that it's no longer fun. And other groups, like NASA Time Trials are more attractive to Terry, and Rally America (and my girlfriend's rally career) is more attractive to me.

At this point I like the US Congress more than the SCCA SEB/AC.

 

[Sky Render]

I find it amusing when people comment on my car by saying, "Why would you do that? It changes your class and/or is illegal in SCCA!"

Because I don't give a crap about SCCA rules. I run precisely one venue a year with SCCA, and I couldn't care less what "class" they put me in. If they want to put me in some unlimited class just because I corrected the geometry on my lower control arms, so be it. I prefer clubs that use time index scores anyway.

 

[JesseW.]

which fasttrac month was the diff cover in? i would like to support changing it, although i still run a phb

 

[DILYSI Dave]

which fasttrac month was the diff cover in? i would like to support changing it, although i still run a phb

Both the clarification and the new proposal were just released in the February FT. http://www.scca.com/about/?cid=44415

You can write the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com/

 

[Whiskey11]

Both the clarification and the new proposal were just released in the February FT. http://www.scca.com/about/?cid=44415

You can write the SEB at http://www.sebscca.com/

Dave, not that it effects me, but wouldn't it be smart to apply it to both ST and SP since they already have the same suspension modifications? The Watts link clarification hurts choices for those of us in STX (although I run the Fays2 Unit) trying that uphill battle...

 

[JesseW.]

Letter Submitted. As far as a dog in the fight on this, if replacing a diff cover is going to give that much of an advantage, then the PHB brace and its removal to fit a Fays2 should be illegal as well since it would substantially strengthen the crossbracing of the car... Not that i really care if anyone is running a Fays2, cortex, whiteline, etc. because I am still just trying to outrun some of the F-stock guys at national events.

 

[Whiskey11]

Letter Submitted. As far as a dog in the fight on this, if replacing a diff cover is going to give that much of an advantage, then the PHB brace and its removal to fit a Fays2 should be illegal as well since it would substantially strengthen the crossbracing of the car... Not that i really care if anyone is running a Fays2, cortex, whiteline, etc. because I am still just trying to outrun some of the F-stock guys at national events.

I don't have any "data" to support this assumption but just analyzing how the loads are on the chassis at the point where the stock, bolted on, cross member is, I don't see much in the way of torsional rigidity increased from using a Fays2 over the stock piece. The whole premise of the stock piece is to prevent the lateral loads from ripping the chassis side PHB mount off the unibody of the car. I doubt it adds much, if any, to the strength of the chassis in any load direction other than straight through the bar. Maybe Norm give us his thoughts on it.

 

[DILYSI Dave]

Dave, not that it effects me, but wouldn't it be smart to apply it to both ST and SP since they already have the same suspension modifications? The Watts link clarification hurts choices for those of us in STX (although I run the Fays2 Unit) trying that uphill battle...

Good catch. Thanks. Can you write a letter to that effect? I can bring it up, but we've got a letter tracking system that will help it not get lost in the fray.

 

[Whiskey11]

Good catch. Thanks. Can you write a letter to that effect? I can bring it up, but we've got a letter tracking system that will help it not get lost in the fray.

I'll try and remember to do it tonight.

 

[JesseW.]

I don't have any "data" to support this assumption but just analyzing how the loads are on the chassis at the point where the stock, bolted on, cross member is, I don't see much in the way of torsional rigidity increased from using a Fays2 over the stock piece. The whole premise of the stock piece is to prevent the lateral loads from ripping the chassis side PHB mount off the unibody of the car. I doubt it adds much, if any, to the strength of the chassis in any load direction other than straight through the bar. Maybe Norm give us his thoughts on it.

#9767 Watts Link Clarification
There is no allowance to replace the differential cover. Modifications to the original differential cover are permitted, but replacing the entire differential cover would be outside the scope of the current allowance, which is intended to permit any method of attachment, not wholesale replacement of parts to which the attachment is made.

I don't either, but you can use the same arguement for it as the diff cover. the "it adds Performance!", Wholesale replacement, arguement, when it really doesn't. they apparrently want parts added, not replaced. and that brace is replaced by a structure. kinda to show how stupid the diff cover arguement is.

I didn't add that in my letter, just incase it was to open pandora's box and outlaw every watts link....

 

[Roadracer350]

I guess once I get my FR done it wont be able to run in anything except open track days right?

 

[DILYSI Dave]

I don't either, but you can use the same arguement for it as the diff cover. the "it adds Performance!", Wholesale replacement, arguement, when it really doesn't. they apparrently want parts added, not replaced. and that brace is replaced by a structure. kinda to show how stupid the diff cover arguement is.

I didn't add that in my letter, just incase it was to open pandora's box and outlaw every watts link....

Just for clarity - "It adds performance!" was Terry's editorializing. All the clarification said was that there's no allowance to replace it.

 

[DILYSI Dave]

I guess once I get my FR done it wont be able to run in anything except open track days right?

There's ALWAYS some place to run. You'd have to work hard to make it illegal for C Prepared, which is what I'm building for.

 

[Sky Render]

I guess once I get my FR done it wont be able to run in anything except open track days right?

Run it anyway. Who cares what class SCCA places you in?

EDIT:

Here's what I'm trying to get at. Not many people have the time, resources, or skills to be nationally competitive at SCCA autocross. If you want to be one of them, you have to build your car within their rules, no matter how assinine they seem.

However, if you're like me (and, I'd like to think, most people who autocross) and just want to have FUN driving your car FAST, then to hell with their rules. Build your car the way you want to, race the piss out of it, and have FUN. SCCA's rules be damned.

 

[dontlifttoshift]

Dave,

If I took a whiteline watts kit and machined the diff cover to fit over the stock diff cover that would be legal.....? Stock cover is intact and since mounting is free for the watts it sounds like that would work. I have no idea if that is actually feasible but it does fit within the rules.

So in my mind all the clarification did was make it harder for average guy to use that sort of watts link.

 

[modernbeat]

Just for clarity - "It adds performance!" was Terry's editorializing. All the clarification said was that there's no allowance to replace it.

That is what was argued at the SEB meeting, and what the decision was made on, hence the quote. Just because it didn't make it into Fastrack does not mean it was not a part of the debate by the SEB.