Sway Bars w/ Whiteline RLCA Relo Brackets?

[marka]

Howdy,

Guys, you really need to just finish this. Now. You're all winding up looking like a bunch of jack-holes, and while this is entertaining to watch from the sidelines, it's gone on long enough. A clarification was requested, the clarification was issued, and from what has been said (by BOTH sides), the clarification was incorrect. However, it IS now an official ruling, and unless and until that is protested/appealed and overturned, it has (apparently) made most Watts link kits illegal.

Thanks for your post. I very much appreciate folks who can see both sides of an issue. Perhaps you'd like to become an SEB member?



But one comment here... I don't think the clarification was incorrect. The rules are what they are and the SEB/SPAC decided that they say that the Whiteline diff cover as a propeller mount isn't compliant.

I think what Dave and I have both said is that we think there probably should be an additional allowance for folks to change the diff cover, for all of the good reasons posted in this thread. But that's an additional allowance and as such it needs to go through the rules process for 2014 just like any other rules change.

I'm going to step back away from this thread now. I very much appreciate those of you who were able to discuss this even if the clarification didn't go the way you'd have liked it to go. As for the others... I appreciate that you're angry and will try to utilize my thick skin. Hopefully you'll come to accept that sometimes clarifications don't go the way you want them to go

Either way, I hope we can all keep going out and autocrossing our cars. Rules are necessary and all, but they're frequently not that fun. But 400hp cars sliding around the cones? Nearly always fun.

Hope to see you all at an event!

Mark

 

[Whiskey11]

Howdy,



Thanks for your post. I very much appreciate folks who can see both sides of an issue. Perhaps you'd like to become an SEB member?



But one comment here... I don't think the clarification was incorrect. The rules are what they are and the SEB/SPAC decided that they say that the Whiteline diff cover as a propeller mount isn't compliant.

I think what Dave and I have both said is that we think there probably should be an additional allowance for folks to change the diff cover, for all of the good reasons posted in this thread. But that's an additional allowance and as such it needs to go through the rules process for 2014 just like any other rules change.

I'm going to step back away from this thread now. I very much appreciate those of you who were able to discuss this even if the clarification didn't go the way you'd have liked it to go. As for the others... I appreciate that you're angry and will try to utilize my thick skin. Hopefully you'll come to accept that sometimes clarifications don't go the way you want them to go

Either way, I hope we can all keep going out and autocrossing our cars. Rules are necessary and all, but they're frequently not that fun. But 400hp cars sliding around the cones? Nearly always fun.

Hope to see you all at an event!

Mark

You should join us on 265 wide tires and the hopeless thought that we JUST MIGHT trophy if we max out the car 100% to the rules... Someday, I'll have the info to either say "Yeah, it's "competitive"" or "Yeah a move to STU is beneficial to the car and makes sense." So far, the overwhelming majority of responses about a "V8 ST Class" on SCCAForums (Huge selection of opinions... errr...) is that there is no proof that it isn't competitive in STX, just Terry's stab at it (and a good one at that, but not 100% complete either). But yes, come join us V8 nut jobs in 3800lb cars (with driver) on 265 wide street tires! Talk about REAL hooning!

 

[modernbeat]

...A clarification was requested, the clarification was issued, and from what has been said (by BOTH sides), the clarification was incorrect. However, it IS now an official ruling, and unless and until that is protested/appealed and overturned, it has (apparently) made most Watts link kits illegal...

That's the crux though Dave. Had we protested it, we could have convinced 5 of our peers. Instead, we handed the decision to an entrenched lobby behind closed doors that made a binding decision.

The unfortunate part is that there is no more real protest. There is no appeal. The SEB is the end of the road. As bad as their decision is, we, and all other SCCA participants are stuck with it.

The clarification is NOT binding, despite what they say. We can still run the parts until protested and try to sway a protest committee. But after this clarification it would be very difficult to persuade a protest committee that a Watts, or other lateral control device that requires swapping OEM parts for a custom part should be legal.

What's worse, is that this is now a precedent. "Unlimited" in this case now means a weaker "unlimited addition" despite what similar words means other places in the rule book.

Here’s the section on STOCK class swaybars from the 2012 book.

[FONT="]13.7 ANTI-ROLL (SWAY) BARS[/FONT]
[FONT="]A. Substitution, addition, or removal of a single anti-roll bar and supporting hardware (brackets, endlinks, bushings, etc.) is permitted. The use of any bushing material is permitted. A bushing may be implemented as a bearing.[/FONT]
[FONT="]B. Substitution, addition, or removal of anti-roll bars may serve no other purpose than that of an anti-roll bar.[/FONT]
[FONT="]C. No modification to the body, frame, or other components to accom[/FONT][FONT="]modate anti-roll bar addition or substitution is allowed except for the drilling of holes for mounting bolts. Non-standard lateral members which connect between the brackets for the bar are not permitted.[/FONT]

And this is in the clarifications on page 268.

[FONT="]MAZDA MIATA ANTI-ROLL BAR MOUNTS[/FONT]
[FONT="]For the purposes of section 13.7, the upper (flat) and lower (U[/FONT][FONT="]shaped) mounting brackets for the front anti-roll bar on a Miata are both considered to be anti-roll bar brackets.[/FONT]

This clarification allows Miata owners to cut off a large bracket welded to the chassis on the front of the car. They are allowed to cut off the welded bracket and replace it with a new bracket that is fabricated from scratch, not a modified OEM part. And the swaybar allowance is not even “unlimited”. It’s just “permitted”.

Why would we think the lateral locating device allowance, which uses much stronger terms, would actually be MORE restrictive?

 

[Sam Strano]

Well, I'm typing this from Albuquerque NM. I haven't been around because I was on vacation and having a good time, was.

I'm going to point out a number of things, and do my best to remain calm while doing so.

I am a Whiteline dealer, I've filled out the paperwork (twice in fact, and the second time they still had me in the system from years ago, before Vorshlag was even around). I have not bought anything direct because I have other vendors that serve me better, even though I make less money. I, in fact, have Whiteline parts on my FR-S, which is in the parking lot of this hotel right now. And if anyone wants to doubt that, well order up the Watts link or anything else from me and see if you don't get it.

My sway bars aren't unicorn blood, but they are well thought out, and geared toward what I prefer to do with the cars. And I've been making them for quite a while now and since before Whiteline was making theirs, or Vorshlag even had a Mustang. In fact I had won something like 4 or 6 National Championships in S197's before they had an S197. When they bought their red car, I even offered help and a discount to them (in exchange for the discount given to me on camber plates) on my sway bars. I went to them first being fellow auto crossers, I'd have hoped they have done the same, but it's clear that I am the mortal enemy. Guess it makes sense, if you are trying to take someone down, you don't want anyone to think you might have help to do it. I guess, after what I've seen today I'm not sure any logic is really applicable.

Dave and Mark have been very kind to Terry considering the attitude displayed. I can't believe that he would even have the opportunity to run SCCA events in the future after the things he's said about them. I'm not surprised by what he said about me, sadly. Even the lies.

I've been running SCCA since 1994, I've done a lot since then to better myself and help serve the sport. From teaching others to drive, to doing course designs, to speaking at Divisional Conventions to serving as a volunteer and sometimes taking flak, though NEVER like the stuff here, on both the SAC and SPAC. In fact I was the one that got SFC's made legal in SP. I was the one Pony-car driver that beat the Evo's when they were in ESP... I in fact won ESP three times in 2002, 2004, and 2006, 3 of 4 years I ran there (the other time I was 3rd in 1999). It would seem it's easier to complain than work to help. I think the fact Terry has written hundreds of letters is pretty telling that he just is never happy. I've written a total of maybe 20 since 1994. And while I'm not perfect and do get upset I've NEVER seen anything like this.

It would appear that someone inside the SEB or SPAC is hand feeding information to these guys since they seem to know (or think they know) what is going on. Which makes me think there is some politics afoot to say the least.

I did not run ESP this or last year. I did not protest. I did not submit a letter to the SEB or SPAC about the Whiteline Watts link (which I do in fact sell if someone were to want it). I did answer some questions with my opinion to some folks at Nationals as well as on another thread here that I think MarkA linked. It would seem I'm a master manipulator. I run the black helicopters, I have 100 billion dollars because I can get anyone to do what I want them too. That's why I live in a house that cost me $45k and is 1000 Square Feet and have a shop that only has heated offices. It's all a cover!

Terry and Jason can have no respect for me. I don't need it, I don't want it. But I think it's odd they'd have no respect for someone with my record who is friends with all the Texas guys (in fact I actually stopped in Houston yesterday to have lunch with an old FS friend and customer... who most recently went to Vorshlag for his last purchase because they were friends, and I didn't think twice about calling the guy because I know why he did what he did). But you know, if you can't respect the guy who beat the current and reigning National Champion since 2007. Or the guy who build one of the 3 cars that beat you at Nationals, or the 2009 Solo Driver of the year for SCCA, or the 2012 SCCA Driver of Eminence, or the 2009 ProSolo Overall Champion.... who would you have respect for? I have earned everything I have in this sport, I can't do much more, and when I was given the Eminence award I cried because I had no idea and when I realized it was me being talked about in the intro, I was afraid that I'd get tepid applause. I wasn't expecting the standing ovation from the 1000 people there. I dunno, what can I do?

This thread was allowed to get way out of control, and I find the call for "civility" an utter joke... and the only one who's been uncivil was Terry, at least as far as I can tell.

I run a business, and a lot of that is based on my SCCA results. I always think the proof is in the pudding. Not everyone can back up their claims, and they seek to cover that up that little tidbit by attacking the person, not their message. Sound like D.C.? Yep, I thought so. Here's the thing, I've never called for rules changes to suit my own business needs. I've always worked within the rules and not every on a fringe because if I got caught cheating it'd taint anything I'd ever done. So to complain that SCCA is being unfair to Vorshlag and Whiteline, well that's nuts.

If I find out Whiteline is complaining about SCCA being unfair when they and Vorshlag opted to do this type of link, I will be taking the Whiteline parts I have on my car off just as soon as I get back to PA. I will not however stop offering the items because that would make it seem like the accusations that I cannot sell the items are correct. Ironically I sold a few Whiteline sway bars for other cars in the last month. Is it fair to me to bury me because I sell other options too? I guess to some all's fair in love in war. :dunno:

As for a few of the comments from SkyRender about SCCA and all that. Well, let's be honest Vince. Whiteline has been more than a little nice to both you and Terry, the two champions of the items, no? As for you not wanting to run SCCA. Ok, but maybe you prefer being the bigger fish in the smaller pond? I mean when I met you in person (after having talked to you for hours by phone even though you were pretty clearly going to do what you wanted despite my solicited opinion when you bought the Koni's and springs), I was I think pretty damned nice. Took you for rides in my Corvette, tried to explain some things about driving, etc. I also beat you by 5 seconds in a 173 hp Pontiac Solstice on street tires (Z1 Star specs) on a course I had to go to 3rd twice on. And it was 10 seconds between you and me when I ran the Corvette. Could it be that you are running for fun more than competition? I know that might hurt, but I'm sorry, I have to call them like I see them and it does infuriate me that you refer to your autocross results to prove your claims when in reality the speed isn't close to there. I'm not calling any names, I know that might hurt but it's the truth. If in fact you can back up the claims, then great!

As for LCA brackets and arms... it's clear that these cars do not require them to win. You might want them, I get it. But everyone wants something and well there have to be rules. And in a time where people like to complain about the cost of things, I find it funny you want to add more cost by allowing more things to test. If the SEB allows alternate diff covers, ok. I see no need, but then again I also sell Watts links that work without changing them, along with one that requires it. I don't care either way, and if you want the $899 one that is less adjustable over the $650 that is more so I'm not going to stop you from buying it unless you want my honest opinion.

If in fact Terry your letters were edited, I don't know how you could show you face. What's worse, I don't know how those that edited them can be ok with what you posted. Imagine what things must have been taken out given what was posted.

Bottom line. If you don't like something, work to change is, don't burn the earth. If you don't like me, be honest with yourself as to why. I've never done anything to you like you've done to me. In fact the only two dealings I've had with you were the camber plates you told me rocked and I stepped up to try (and disliked but never ranted about on a public forum), and the AST debacle for the Shelby and later my 5.0. Which I spend a lot of money on, had rebuild and or fixed 3 times, and never even ran at Nationals due to not having them or failures...including putting my Koni's back on in paddock in 2010 after blowing up the right rear shock. Even at that I never go online and ranted about it, but I ain't gonna lie when people ask me. And I think that Casey Weiss has been loyal to a fault trying to get his working. And yes I've told him he's nuts and all the reasons I think that... and I know that my telling him that has gotten back to you guys. And you what, I stand by it, because you and I both know I ran AST's and Koni's. You know I commissioned you (before you split from AST) to built them. You know I sent you stock struts to measure and got ones that were so tall I couldn't shut the hood to test them to find out the valving was a mess. You know that a number then unscrewed their caps. And you know that that rear blew up AT NATIONALS, and you know I'm serious about winning. You can claim I'm a dirtbag or whatever you want, but the facts are I tried working with you, I even tried to help you. And this is the thanks I get.

It's very sad.

I'm going to bed now because I'm going to try and enjoy the rest of the precious time off I have.. time I use to get away from this kind of madness (though usually about 93% less than this).

I sincerely hope that those reading consider how you'd feel in the shoes of myself, MarkA, Dave, or any person who tries to help and do their best to help the sport.

As for the others who only want to complain, or make claims that aren't supportable, or say now terrible the SCCA is for having rules that keep folks from having the rug pulled out from under them *IF THEY CARE TO FOLLOW THE RULEBOOK* in the first place well there isn't much I can say. You probably also complain about getting arrested by the man for drinking and driving because he's not letting you do whatever you damn well please.

And one more thing. The Fays2 isn't a chassis brace. It bolts to the exact same spots as the stock Ford PHB and braces do on each side. How can a part that replaces those (legal to do) and bolts on the same spots be considered a brace anymore than the stock piece (and the stock upper part is actually called a PHB BRACE). The spin is amazing, and pretty weak to be honest.

 

[fun4me]

 

[boardkat]

 

[Sky Render]

Hope to see you all at an event!

Mark

Yeah, the pneumatic struts I installed on my hood to hold it open makes my car illegal for ESP.

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk

Sam, in an earlier post in this thread I admitted that I only run SCCA events for fun. I have zero desire to build my car within the constraints set by SCCA classes. The smaller club I run with uses time indexes.

And, once again, bravo at beating a person who autocrossed for less than 2 years with your decade of experience.

And I truly thank you for the ride alongs. While we disagree on a lot of things, I will readily admit that you are a great driver.

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Vorshlag's point is that the wording in the rules is that the mounting point for the Watts link is "unrestricted." By any reasonable definition of the word, that means ANYTHING goes, including substituting an aftermarket piece for the factory one. You all have to admit, this makes some sense.

I think the overwhelming majority of competitors *that actually know how a solid axle suspension works* would agree with this logic, yes. It seems the ones that do not agree are either A) out of their depth or B) have ulterior motives.

The definition of "unrestricted" was pretty clear to me, before this.

The SCCA's point is that the substituted part CANNOT perform any other function. This ALSO makes some sense, to help prevent rules gamesmanship, like adding subframe connectors under the guise of "jacking rails," or using 1/4" plate steel to fabricate a battery box, in ballast-restricted classes.

The Whiteline cover is PRETTIER than the stamped steel unit that came on my car, thus it serves another purpose. See how silly this can get??? Hence my disdain for the SCCA and their lawyer-like interpretations of COMPLETELY POINTLESS ARGUMENTS.

16.1. P. STREET MOD "No Weenie" Rule:

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.
Minor strengthening, without relocation, of original chassis/suspension
pickup points is allowed. Examples include welding washers
restricting control arm mounting bolt movement, local reinforcement
of control arm chassis mounts, etc.

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. Plastic under-trays and covers below the vehicle may be
removed or modified as necessary to facilitate other compliant modifications,
but not added or enlarged.

This "no weenie" rule was one of the better ideas by Dennis Grant when forming the Street Modified category. I'm surprised it is still in the rulebook. It needs to be in ALL categories, and it would preclude all sorts of weenie arguments like this.

We can play "what if" or "yeah, but" games forever. Even LEGAL parts can be construed to be illegal if you want to lawyer it around enough, unless they're spelled out in a spec parts list somewhere.

Exactly. This over-reach and arguments of minutia are both fundamental problems that are unique to SCCA Solo. Even when they know it is a bad ruling, and propose to implement a new rule to un-do what they just screwed up.... it takes another 1-2 YEARS to implement. They can screw something up in an instant but it takes a minimum of one year to fix it? That's just broken.

Guys, you really need to just finish this. Now. You're all winding up looking like a bunch of jack-holes, and while this is entertaining to watch from the sidelines, it's gone on long enough. A clarification was requested, the clarification was issued, and from what has been said (by BOTH sides), the clarification was incorrect. However, it IS now an official ruling, and unless and until that is protested/appealed and overturned, it has (apparently) made most Watts link kits illegal.

AGREED. I've got to step away from this mess, because I want to get the STANK of this illogical, pointless ruling off of ME. I have wasted too much time arguing with people that don't understand what they are ruling on, and it is getting nowhere. Our seemingly slam-dunk "clarification request" mess has dragged on for MONTHS and I'm tired of stressing over this.

I am not ever going to change the minds of the Alighty SEB. They know all. Their logic is never flawed. Their ruling is Final. So sayeth the Lord.

In the end, it is what it is, and Vorshlag is faced with essentially three options:
1) Pull the Whiteline piece off the car and either use a legal Watts, or go back to a Panhard. Yes, I know, tire clearances, etc, but that will make the car legal for competition.
2) Run the car as-is, and run the risk of a DQ on the basis of a protest.
3) Vote with your feet, and go play in a different sandbox.

Yep, to avoid the risk of a potential DQ with running parts now deemed illegal because of pointless illogical reasons, and to avoid spending a lot of time and money to make the SCCA Clusterf*ck 9000 customized diff cover, we are going with option 3.

After now... 26 years? of SCCA frustration, with arbitrarily stupid rules, pushed down our throats often times by pompous jackholes, we are moving on. My personal cars will no longer be classed for SCCA Solo first and run in "wherever it fits" for other groups. We might do some regional SCCA events (I really like the folks in the Texas region, and will miss seeing a lot of competitors at the National level), but we will abstain from supporting or competing in SCCA National level events. I'm sure we will not be missed.

I'm tired of the bickering, the back-room dealings, the frustration and the amount of time wasted trying to make sense of this mess of a rulebook. Building around the SCCA rules just isn't FUN anymore. I love the sport of autocross, but I cannot stand the SCCA organizational ethos nor some of the people at the top levels. This club is a mess, and they have lost their way. We can get our "parking lot kicks" with other groups, and we will.

NASA beckons... the clouds part and I can see the light now... Adios SCCA!

I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I will not feed the "SEB Militia" further with juicy quotes, private messages to share publicly, or logic and fact filled arguments for them to trip themselves up over.

It is pointless.

 

[DILYSI Dave]

16.1. P. STREET MOD "No Weenie" Rule:

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.
Minor strengthening, without relocation, of original chassis/suspension
pickup points is allowed. Examples include welding washers
restricting control arm mounting bolt movement, local reinforcement
of control arm chassis mounts, etc.

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. Plastic under-trays and covers below the vehicle may be
removed or modified as necessary to facilitate other compliant modifications, but not added or enlarged.

This "no weenie" rule was one of the better ideas by Dennis Grant when forming the Street Modified category. I'm surprised it is still in the rulebook. It needs to be in ALL categories, and it would preclude all sorts of weenie arguments like this.

Thanks. That was a rule I authored when I was on the SMAC. I'm proud of that one. Dennis certainly was the impetus behind the "no weenies" sentiment, but I took on the task of codifying that into rulebook language. An even prouder moment was when Prepared (a category in which I had not played any part in rule making) adopted the same language. I don't know if it's ever been suggested to be included in the Street Prepared rules or not. Might be worth a letter suggesting that the language be adopted into SP, in whole or in part (for instance, is strengthening pickup points in the spirit of SP? Dunno - worth a discussion though).

I am sorry this escalated like it did. I'm sorry you think that I called you a liar or a cheater. I did not intend either and if something I said implied that I thought you were, then that was an unintentional implication. I agree that it's a shitty situation and I'm trying to resolve it as fast as possible within the constraints of our rules, which unfortunately means a best case scenario of a 1/1/14 allowance. I don't like it, but that's the framework we operate within. I do hope you know that nobody was out to screw you. I agree that you got screwed, but that was an unfortunate side effect, and certainly not the goal.

Selfishly, I hope we can get past this, as I like the Vorshlag products I have and I would like to buy more. I appreciate your contributions to both S197 development and to Solo. I'm disappointed that you won't be playing in SCCA any longer, though I get it. If I put myself in your shoes, I might come to the same conclusion.

As a goodwill gesture, if you want to send me an OE cover, a Whiteline cover, a pivot, and a pivot bracket, I'll fab you a SCCA Clusterf*ck 9000 cover (that did make me laugh by the way). It won't require trunk notching or anything like was mentioned, as it will land the pivot bracket in the exact same place as the whiteline cover (it would have to so as to not impart any binding into the bushings). If you don't want to though, I understand.

 

[dontlifttoshift]

I get the impression that almost everyone thinks the diff cover should be allowed, SEB members uncluded. Why does it take a year to change this then? I don't know the process, that's why I am asking. It seems like there is always red letters in the rule book, is that something different?

 

[DILYSI Dave]

I get the impression that almost everyone thinks the diff cover should be allowed, SEB members uncluded. Why does it take a year to change this then? I don't know the process, that's why I am asking. It seems like there is always red letters in the rule book, is that something different?

Good question. Here's a snipet from the rule book -

I.2.3 Core Values
The decisions of the SEB are based upon three core values that together equate with member value. These core values are as follows:
1. Increased participation and involvement.
2. Providing a variety of classes to satisfy a range of economies and commitments.
3. Evolving rules in a planned manner.

Each topic before the SEB is compared to these core values to ensure an overall positive effect. It is recognized that an individual decision may at times result in a disadvantage or increased cost to some individual members, but that the decision reached is based on the long-term benefit for the majority of the members.

Point 2 isn't really relevant here. Point 1 certainly is, as is Point 3. The ruling was driven by Point 3 - Evolving the rules in a planned manner. Now, suspend for a moment the question of whether the rules allowed the cover already via the unrestricted mounting, since the disagreement on that is the root of all of this. Since an allowance to change the cover was not in place, introduction of that allowance is a new rule. The method by which we evolve the rules in a planned manner is that we put proposals in front of the membership for comment. The membership has a period of time during which they can comment on proposals that are up for inclusion in the rulebook. The length of that comment period isn't fixed, as generally the later in the year the less time there is for comment before the batch of changes for the following year are presented to the Board of Directors for approval. This is typically done in November or December. The Board decides on the proposals, advises us of what has been approved, and that makes it into the following rule book. In this case though, because a proposal didn't happen until January, that means that the time until a new rulebook is almost a year. We typically will publish new proposals until September or October. That still gives a month or two of feedback before the rules have to go in front of the BOD. In this case, the request for clarification didn't come in until November. About the worst time possible for a rule change, as it's too late for the upcoming book, so any action on it will be at least a year out. It isn't perfect. Far from it. But it's the framework within which we work.

So what about Point 1? As evidenced in this thread from the people who say they are leaving and the people who say they have left / won't come because of unfavorable rules / rulings, our decisions affect participation. So those two points are playing tug-o-war in this case. On the one hand we are tasked with not dropping new rules randomly, and on the other we are tasked with increasing participation, and those two are at odds here. In this case, we deferred to rules stability as being the better way to serve the membership, while also working as quickly as possible towards a resolution that hopefully isn't too damaging to participation. Did we make the right call? That's up for everyone to decide for themselves.

It isn't always pretty, but I hope that better explains the framework that we are working in. Of note, on the roadrace side, they do have the flexibility of monthly updates. The catch with that though is that there is the chance that you open FasTracks to find a rule change that renders the car illegal, and you're 3 days out from heading to a race weekend. The Board has actually tasked the CRB (Club Race's version of the SEB) to try and function more like Solo in this regard.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

As someone who has absolutely no dog in this fight (I find AutoX incredibly boring and coming from sportbikes, the machismo is laughable anyway)....

Can I make a suggestion? This thread isn't making ANYONE look good. Again tell to me to fuck off, I don't care. But you all are sounding like a bunch of 17 year old girls arguing about what capris you should wear out on Saturday night.

 

[frank s]

As someone who has absolutely no dog in this fight (I find AutoX incredibly boring and coming from sportbikes, the machismo is laughable anyway)....

Can I make a suggestion? This thread isn't making ANYONE look good. Again tell to me to fuck off, I don't care. But you all are sounding like a bunch of 17 year old girls arguing about what capris you should wear out on Saturday night.

So, which ones did you decide on?

 

[Norm Peterson]

So Dave, why can't this topic be handled as a Tech Bulletin in similar fashion to what was done in the October 2012 ST section, #7789, in reference to Section 14.10 D?

Just resolve the simple matter of the cover legality. Maybe just define it as an optional attachment point for lateral locating devices (noting that this would also let you run a half-length PHB similar to a circle track J-bar).

It should be obvious that whatever gets done needs to be defined within the solid axle allowances, just so you don't get any unintended consequences on the IRS side.


Norm

As someone who has absolutely no dog in this fight (I find AutoX incredibly boring and coming from sportbikes, the machismo is laughable anyway)....

So what's your point?

We don't all have the same risk tolerance, and compared to running a sportbike on the big track, club racing and certainly HPDE/track days would also seem pretty tame.

Motocrossers and trick riders might even hold the same opinions regarding sportbikes.

Autocross is entry-level motorsports - I can't see how the phrase "a non-speed driving skill contest", which appears in the introductory section of the Solo rules could be interpreted much differently. Doesn't matter how hard you play at it, it is what it is. And there's a rather wider range of cars that you're trying to fit into a class structure that isn't comprised of everybody's separate "I-class" than there is variety in bikes.


Norm

 

[dontlifttoshift]

I'm with Norm, why not a tech bulletin to make the allowance.

If I put my shirt on backwards in the morning and see that it is on backwards, I don't wait until the next time I put a shirt on to turn it around.

 

[DILYSI Dave]

So Dave, why can't this topic be handled as a Tech Bulletin in similar fashion to what was done in the October 2012 ST section, #7789, in reference to Section 14.10 D?

Just resolve the simple matter of the cover legality. Maybe just define it as an optional attachment point for lateral locating devices (noting that this would also let you run a half-length PHB similar to a circle track J-bar).

It should be obvious that whatever gets done needs to be defined within the solid axle allowances, just so you don't get any unintended consequences on the IRS side.


Norm

I looked through the September, October, and November FasTracks. Couldn't find the one you're talking about. Can you link me to the right FT and give me a page number? Sorry.

 

[Norm Peterson]

It was actually in the December Fastrack, and I had referenced the date at the top of the Solo/SEB section, which was October 24, 2012.

Edit: page 17.

It was sent out in late November.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/12-fastrack-dec-solo.pdf


Norm

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Thanks. That was a rule (SM No Weenies) I authored when I was on the SMAC. I'm proud of that one. Dennis certainly was the impetus behind the "no weenies" sentiment, but I took on the task of codifying that into rulebook language. An even prouder moment was when Prepared (a category in which I had not played any part in rule making) adopted the same language. I don't know if it's ever been suggested to be included in the Street Prepared rules or not. Might be worth a letter suggesting that the language be adopted into SP, in whole or in part (for instance, is strengthening pickup points in the spirit of SP? Dunno - worth a discussion though).

Wow, really? OK I have just changed my opinion of you - I freagin LOVE that rule, mostly for its unabashed lack of SCCA institutional boneheadedness! And I found your website and noticed that you do some fabrication and suspension design. So, yea... if I could just retract that nastiness in my first post... yea, didn't thin kit was gonna be that easy. :/

I am sorry this escalated like it did. I'm sorry you think that I called you a liar or a cheater. I did not intend either and if something I said implied that I thought you were, then that was an unintentional implication.

I, too, am sorry this got so completely out of control. I have been following this situation closely (on the fringes, with whatever morsel of info we could get) for going on 2 months and it has really stressed me out. A few of my buttons were pushed and I was less than professional in my replies. I really was honestly astonished that the clarification went the way it did. I felt the logic and wording was infallible, but it went beyond logic and went into nit-picking wordsmithing. Oh well, I should be used to that after so many decades of SCCA, but it never ceases to amaze me.

This whole ordeal has caused me a lot of lost sleep and grief, and in the end I have to chuck a $50K ESP project into the Dumpster and sell the car. I simply cannot wait a year for the rule to be un-f#cked, and I refuse to use a competing part on my race car other than one that I stand behind and sell - and still feel is 100% legal to the original "unrestricted" wording. I have spent hours under the car trying to find an alternative, but there just isn't a simple or effective fix to fit this new ruling and still keep any semblance of the Whiteline kit. Again - unlike most competitors, I will go to great lengths to "race what I sell", and I feel that the Whiteline kit is the best bolt-on Watts Link that is suitable for real daily driven street use AND on a race track AND in an autocross, with the highest levels of grip and lateral loading.

I agree that it's a shitty situation and I'm trying to resolve it as fast as possible within the constraints of our rules, which unfortunately means a best case scenario of a 1/1/14 allowance. I don't like it, but that's the framework we operate within. I do hope you know that nobody was out to screw you. I agree that you got screwed, but that was an unfortunate side effect, and certainly not the goal.

I get that, but it still frustrates the hell outta me that a clarification to make many things illegal can happen instantly but the fix to that known issue takes a calender year to implement. If anything positive can come out of this whole mess I hope that this somewhat flawed "rules repair" system can be reviewed at the highest levels.

Keep it Easy, Keep it Fun.

Selfishly, I hope we can get past this, as I like the Vorshlag products I have and I would like to buy more. I appreciate your contributions to both S197 development and to Solo. I'm disappointed that you won't be playing in SCCA any longer, though I get it. If I put myself in your shoes, I might come to the same conclusion.

I hope we can get past this as well, but I won't presume you will take my apology easily. I doubt I'll ever be able to stand in the same room as Strano, after that pack of pity party nonsense and half-truths about our interactions (or lack thereof) he wrote above, but I do hope you and Mark can accept my apologies for my childish behavior and personal pot shots. They were uncalled for, but I was on a rampage after this ruling came about. I read some condescending attitudes into some SEB personnel responses that might not have really been intended. It just wasn't as simple to fix as some implied, and I wanted to show the depth and complexity of Watts Link mounting to prove a point.

A pointless point, as it turns out. The SCCA calendar waits for no man.

Racing at Texas World Speedway in one of the 7 Fox Mustangs I've owned, circa 1991

Having worked with this S197 chassis since 2008 and after installing various PHBs, torque arms, control arms and eventually Watts Link products on various Mustang chassis (including Fox and SN95 cars starting in the late 1980s), I knew how difficult making a temporary fix for this would be w/o scrapping the whole system. The packaging is SO tight on the back of this chassis that making a diff cover strong enough + the propeller mount + the propeller + the lateral pivot bars + the cross-chassis support bar (replacing the factory piece) it just isn't going to be possible to replicate what Whiteline did without major investment of time and money, or huge compromises. There are gaps between parts less than 1/8" and it all barely fits. Whiteline invested a lot of money into their cast aluminum cover, which was made explicitly to mount the Watts. Most of the other Watts kits use another diff cover made for other purposes (from drag racing) and these don't tend to have the added height adjustment for the propeller / rear CG like this one does... or they are CNC billet pieces... just not as elegant as the WL piece. I'm not being a salesman here, I truly respect their engineering work in this kit. After seeing their pre-production Watts Link parts at SEMA, this kit was literally the reason why we became a WL dealer. I'm not going to throw that away because a rule was changed that made this kit illegal for a year. We can continue to race and test these parts in other venues, none of which have any obscure penalties on one brand vs another.

As a goodwill gesture, if you want to send me an OE cover, a Whiteline cover, a pivot, and a pivot bracket, I'll fab you a SCCA Clusterf*ck 9000 cover (that did make me laugh by the way). It won't require trunk notching or anything like was mentioned, as it will land the pivot bracket in the exact same place as the whiteline cover (it would have to so as to not impart any binding into the bushings). If you don't want to though, I understand.

Dave - while I do appreciate your rather magnanimous offer, we've decided to pursue other motorsports outlets with our S197(s) in 2013, instead of spending time re-engineering/building/testing a part that we feel doesn't need it, and that will become utterly obsolete in a year. This isn't a good use of our time. If we skip the SCCA Solo Nationals this year we can finally attend the NASA Nationals, which is always on the exact same week. We've neglected going to this event too many times and have a lot of customers there we'd like to see.

There are some great new autocross events we can attend this year, like the Goodguys series (two of which are scheduled in our back yard this year), American Street Car Series (which we attended in 2012), Optima Challenge events (which we also attended in 2012), and a lot of our local marquee autocross clubs we have neglected in the past year, probably from focusing too much on SCCA and NASA alone.

We will of course continue to support out SCCA customers in 2013 and beyond, and will likely attend several local SCCA regional events in our STX BRZ, but National level events are not on our schedule for the rest of this year. Doesn't make sense to race and develop at these top tier events if we're not "legal" or going to Nationals. It will be good to take a year off, I think.

Thanks for hopefully understanding my points of view and please accept my apologies, Mark and Dave, and anyone else offended by my "passionate words".

Cheers,

 

[stkjock]

/\ this is exactly why we let threads play out and keep moderation to a minimum. We are all men and when we act like it things work out.

 

[BigEnos]

Yeah, the pneumatic struts I installed on my hood to hold it open makes my car illegal for ESP.

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk

Your hood struts are legal in stock and therefore legal in SP (comfort and convenience)