Sway Bars w/ Whiteline RLCA Relo Brackets?

[Norm Peterson]

Thanks for the response

Seems I snuck a little last minute editing in after you posted.


Norm

 

[marka]

Howdy,

Apparently a link to this has appeared on the SEB forum and now they are complaining on Facebook. Yay.

Yeah. Turns out the internet works in both directions.

For the record, as someone that was actually there... Dave has it correct. And I'm not sure why Sam's name is being dragged through the mud. He wasn't part of any internal conversation about this and I don't recall him being part of any external conversation either. I had assumed that Terry's letter requesting clarification came about from this thread: http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=1114603#post1114603

Mark

 

[stepqhen]

Terry,
What are those two nuts and threaded ends on the diff cover with the watts link?

 

[modernbeat]

Mark, I thought you were only there for the second call, not the SPAC or the first SEB call. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[stkjock]

guys, lets debate the topic all we want, however, please try to keep personal attacks out.

Thanks

I'm going to remind everyone of the above


S197forums prides itself on a lack of moderation getting in the way, so let's please keep this on the civil side, debate away, heated or not.

TIA

 

[marka]

Howdy,

Terry,
What are those two nuts and threaded ends on the diff cover with the watts link?

http://www.vorshlag.com/product_info.php?cPath=141_142_179&products_id=526

"a new cast aluminum differential cover with integral bearing loading studs, the bracket and bearing in the differential mounted "Football", the inlet/outlet ports on the differential cover (for a potnetial upgrade to a differential fluid cooler)"

Let me once again refer to the rule in 15.8.I.

"Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g. chassis stiffening)"

Mark

ps... childish rants and snide responses aside... The way I'd read the latest Fast track is that the SEB/SPAC looked at this kit as a result of a clarification request, decided it didn't meet the letter of the rules, but then asked the question "why shouldn't this be legal in SP?" And then proposed a change for member comment that if approved would be implemented in 2014. Just like any other rule change.

 

[Whiskey11]

Mark I hope that whatever the result of the ruling is that those of us in ST are not forgotten as there are some of us impacted by the ruling running on STX.

Norm, I see your edit. I had assumed as much through the first part of your post that that I'd what you meant as well. 1/8th might have been much anyway.

 

[Sky Render]

"Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g. chassis stiffening)"

Wow, really?

Based on this "clarification," the Whiteline unit should be allowed, since changing a differential cover does nothing as far as performance is concerned and the Fays2 unit should be disallowed SINCE IT STIFFENS THE CHASSIS.

Congratulations! You just made Terry's point for him. Bravo.

 

[marka]

Howdy,

Mark, I thought you were only there for the second call, not the SPAC or the first SEB call. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a member of the SEB, starting this year. I was on the December call where (AFAIK) the SEB discussed it for the first time and made the decision to publish the clarification that you all just read in Fast Track. I also read all the discussion related to the request for clarification that was posted on the SPAC's internal forum. I was not on the SPAC's call where they discussed this (presumably... there's no requirement I know of that an AC can't recommend a response without discussing it on a call, though I don't believe that happens very often).

Here's the thing with the SCCA rules. I totally get how frustrating some of these rules can be. As an example, I ran an ESP 4th gen Camaro for years and I have a deep and abiding dislike of delrin bushings when spherical bearings make _so_ much more sense. Particularly when you're talking about a caster bushing on a front lca on a 4th gen f body.

But the rules are what they are. When someone writes in for a clarification or when a PC gets involved in a protest to decide if something is legal or not, we have to rule based on what the rules say, not what we think would make sense for them to say.

Anyone in any type of organized racing (I used to roadrace motorcycles with WERA back in the day, so it was cool to see someone here that's racing them!) has dealt with dumb rules that make something hard that doesn't need to be hard. And SCCA Solo certainly has _at least_ its fair share of those.

But there's a process in place for how that gets fixed. The SEB, usually in response to member input, puts a possible change out for member comment, members comment (sometimes), and then the SEB decides what to recommend to the BOD as changes to the rules for the following season. You can read a lot more about how it works here: http://solomatters.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/how-an-idea-becomes-a-rule-the-scca-solo-rules-process/

That process can be frustrating when you're wanting a change. Its even more frustrating when seemingly everyone wants the change. But that same process is also what helps to make sure that you don't get blindsided by a rules change mid season.

Other organizations solve this problem in different ways. There are plusses and minuses to all the approaches that are used and the SCCA's is no different.

I'd frankly welcome any meaningful discussion (vs. ranting or "the SCCA sux, yo!") of issues you see with the SCCA rules. The primary reason I volunteered to be on the SEB was because I'd like to help make the Solo rules better. Having said that, I believe that the majority of our rules are solid, and have become that way through a trial by fire. If you're proposing a change, the burden of proof is going to be (and should be) on you to justify why the change makes sense.

Mark

Howdy,

Wow, really?

Based on this "clarification," the Whiteline unit should be allowed, since changing a differential cover does nothing as far as performance is concerned and the Fays2 unit should be disallowed SINCE IT STIFFENS THE CHASSIS.

Congratulations! You just made Terry's point for him. Bravo.

LOL.

First, what I quoted wasn't a clarification. It was the text of the rule today.

Second, I'm curious why Whiteline would go to the trouble and expense of adding bearing preload and cooler abilities to their cover if that didn't serve any purpose. Usually businesses are more rational than that.

Third, AFAIK (but its completely possible I could have not heard about it) nobody has ever written in requesting clarification or protested a Fays Watts Link setup. I think its a reasonable question to ask if the mounting method they chose for the Watts propeller stiffens the chassis and therefore should be illegal. I have to temper that with wondering if there's a way to mount anything at all to the chassis that doesn't affect its stiffness in some manner, and with wondering if there's another way you could create a chassis side mount of a Watts propeller that would introduce significantly less chassis stiffness than the Fays method.

If you would really like to know if a Fays Watts link mount for a specific application is legal, you should write a letter.

One more thing I should say here, since I'm new... Anything I say here is my opinion only and is not an official statement by the SCCA in any way at all.

Mark

 

[Sky Render]

The bearing preload bolts are to support the differential bearings under heaving loads, such as those found in an autox. They add no performance benefit; they simply improve the longevity of the differential. As for adding differential cooling ports, there is no performance benefit whatsoever unless you actually install a cooler.

And have you LOOKED at a Fay2 unit? The frame that the propeller is supported on is beefier than most subframe connectors.

Our point is that if you are outlawing the differential-mounted units because of how they are mounted, the Fays2 and Steeda units should be outlawed, as well.

wondering if there's another way you could create a chassis side mount of a Watts propeller that would introduce significantly less chassis stiffness than the Fays method.

So what you're saying is that the Fays2 frame does indeed stiffen the chassis, and based upon your quoted rule, is ILLEGAL.

 

[19COBRA93]

I believe that the majority of our rules are solid

As I mentioned earlier, nobody has a problem with the majority of the rules. Focus should be put on the rules that you and anyone else (especially members/racers) feel aren't solid, and work improve them. With open minds, and open communication, common ground can be found.

 

[dontlifttoshift]

Second, I'm curious why Whiteline would go to the trouble and expense of adding bearing preload and cooler abilities to their cover if that didn't serve any purpose. Usually businesses are more rational than that.


Mark

Mark, I agree, no one would add those features if there was no benefit. I understand that those features fall under "serves no other purpose" part of the rule. But if the bearing pre load bolts are left out and plugged as well as any cooler lines are not used then the only benefit to the (for the sake of this conversation) Whiteline diff cover, is a convenient, strong, and safe mount for a watts link.

For any organization to say mounting is free as long as they serve no other benefit and then to clarify that rule by outlawing what I believe is the simplest way to do it is strange to say the least. With the bearing preload and cooler eliminated, the diff cover truly serves no other purpose. I do not understand how it could be interpreted any differently.

 

[marka]

Howdy,

The bearing preload bolts are to support the differential bearings under heaving loads, such as those found in an autox. They add no performance benefit; they simply improve the longevity of the differential.

The rule doesn't say "performance benefit". It says "other purpose". And I completely agree with you that the stated goal of those covers is to better support differential bearings. To me, that sure sounds like "another purpose".

Look. I'll be happy to keep quoting rules at you and the interpretations of those rules. But the fact of the matter is that an official interpretation has been made.

What's _also_ been done is publishing a proposal for a change for 2014 that would make this discussion moot. Perhaps energy would be better spent by supporting that, since it seems to do exactly what you want to do?

And have you LOOKED at a Fay2 unit? The frame that the propeller is supported on is beefier than most subframe connectors.

Our point is that if you are outlawing the differential-mounted units because of how they are mounted, the Fays2 and Steeda units should be outlawed, as well.

So what you're saying is that the Fays2 frame does indeed stiffen the chassis, and based upon your quoted rule, is ILLEGAL.

No, I've never seen a Fays 2 unit. I put the one on my old car with a blindfold on.

And I'm explicitly NOT saying that the Fays2 unit is illegal. I said that its a reasonable question. Like with any modification, you should look at it and decide if you think it meets the rules or not.

But let's talk more about the Whiteline piece, to illustrate something:

Do you really think that the bracket shown there doesn't affect chassis stiffness _at all_? Now I think we'd all agree that its incidental. We'd probably even all agree that it would affect chassis stiffness less than a Fays propeller mount.

And _this_ is why people should write in for clarifications and its one reason why the rule book (any rule book, the SCCA doesn't have a corner on this market) gets bigger over time. Someone finds something that when pushed to the 9th degree might violate a restriction. So you write in and get an official clarification. One side argues that the Fays propeller mount increases chassis stiffness, another argues that its impossible to mount anything to the chassis at all that doesn't affect stiffness in some manner, another argues a different point, etc. And in the end the people in charge of deciding what the official ruling is going to be make a decision.

Mark

 

[Norm Peterson]

Mark - it seems to me that actual use of the WL cover bearing preload and cooling features could be readily verified to be unavailable or disabled, similar to (I think) the disabling of certain OE aero features that appears elsewhere in the rules.

After that, it really is just an allowed attachment for an allowed lateral locating device for a stick axle.


Norm

 

[marka]

Howdy,

Mark, I agree, no one would add those features if there was no benefit. I understand that those features fall under "serves no other purpose" part of the rule. But if the bearing pre load bolts are left out and plugged as well as any cooler lines are not used then the only benefit to the (for the sake of this conversation) Whiteline diff cover, is a convenient, strong, and safe mount for a watts link.

For any organization to say mounting is free as long as they serve no other benefit and then to clarify that rule by outlawing what I believe is the simplest way to do it is strange to say the least. With the bearing preload and cooler eliminated, the diff cover truly serves no other purpose. I do not understand how it could be interpreted any differently.

That's a completely reasonable opinion, other than the loaded word "outlawing" (since, like Schrodinger's cat it wasn't legal or illegal before). Had there been enough opinions like that on the SEB/SPAC, then I expect the clarification would have been different.

But it wasn't. So at this point, my recommendation would be for you to support one of the proposals to allow diff cover changes.

And, I should note, as a former ESP competitor I seriously doubt anyone in ESP is going to give someone a hard time over a diff cover watts link propeller mount. Unless, of course, someone decided to be a huge jerk about it so that people were looking for an excuse to protest.

Again, nothing I say here (ever!) is an official SCCA statement.

Mark

 

[19COBRA93]

The rule doesn't say "performance benefit". It says "other purpose". And I completely agree with you that the stated goal of those covers is to better support differential bearings. To me, that sure sounds like "another purpose".

The question was; If the bearing supports and cooling capability were removed from the Whiteline cover, would it then become legal? Because at that point it would have no other purpose but to support the watts propeller.

 

[marka]

Howdy,

Mark - it seems to me that actual use of the WL cover bearing preload and cooling features could be readily verified to be unavailable or disabled, similar to (I think) the disabling of certain OE aero features that appears elsewhere in the rules.

After that, it really is just an allowed attachment for an allowed lateral locating device for a stick axle.


Norm

I think that's a reasonable argument. But if I were on the PC that was hearing the protest, the next question I'd ask would be "is it required to completely change the diff cover to use this type of mounting system?" And the answer to that is clearly that its not. Anyone with even mild fabrication skills (hell, probably even Terry!) could pretty easily make a bracket that bolted over the stock cover to the diff cover mounting bolts and locates the propeller mount in exactly the same place as that replacement cover locates it.

You might not be able to make it as light (or as stiff. Or with the same heat passing characteristics. Or some other thing I'm not thinking of) as a replacement cover though. And there's your "other purpose".

And all of that is why I personally would choose to fabricate a propeller bracket that mounted over the stock cover. I don't believe there's any question whatsoever that that's legal.

And again, if I had one of these things on my car and I expected the rule to change for 2014 (if it got enough support), I'd run my car as it was and expect my other competitors to treat me with the sportsmanship and respect that I'd treat them with if the situation was reversed. And, it should be said, I'd also expect to lose a protest if it occurred anyway.

Mark

 

[JesseW.]

i wrote a letter in support of allowing all SP cars to change their diff covers.

i also have a letter in on the lca relocators axle side for SM as it says suspension is "unrestricted" as long as it uses the original mounting points. the rear axle should be considered "suspension" since it moves vertically as noted in the the rule book, so is it chassis mount or chassis and axle mounts? the IRS guys get to run extended ball joints that correct their geometry problems and this is the solid axle equivilent... this doesn not apply to SP cars as their suspension is not unrestricted. again, i have a letter in and to me its not legal until clarified, but whats your opinion Mark?

 

[19COBRA93]

You might not be able to make it as light (or as stiff. Or with the same heat passing characteristics. Or some other thing I'm not thinking of) as a replacement cover though. And there's your "other purpose".

And all of that is why I personally would choose to fabricate a propeller bracket that mounted over the stock cover. I don't believe there's any question whatsoever that that's legal.

Which cover are you comparing the Whiteline cover to when you suggest it's lighter, and has better heat passing characteristics? Surely not an OEM cover. because it's actually heavier and has less cooling ability than say a stock 2012 aluminum cover. So if one were to install a Whiteline cover that had the bearing supports and cooling ability removed, it truly would only have one purpose over stock -To support the propeller. Nothing else. If anything, it would be counter productive to the two things you mentioned.

As for fabricating a $1000 bracket to do exactly what the Whiteline cover already does (with bearing supports removed) is, and should be, unnecessary, a waste of time and money, and plain ridiculous.

 

[marka]

Howdy,

i wrote a letter in support of allowing all SP cars to change their diff covers.

i also have a letter in on the lca relocators axle side for SM as it says suspension is "unrestricted" as long as it uses the original mounting points. the rear axle should be considered "suspension" since it moves vertically as noted in the the rule book, so is it chassis mount or chassis and axle mounts? the IRS guys get to run extended ball joints that correct their geometry problems and this is the solid axle equivilent... this doesn not apply to SP cars as their suspension is not unrestricted. again, i have a letter in and to me its not legal until clarified, but whats your opinion Mark?

I ran lca relocators on my car when it was in SM trim. To get an official answer, you need to wait for your official response.

Mark