SCCAForums.com

Some metal is okay.  For example, Miatas have a metal partition between the trunk space and the fuel filler pipes.  The shock top is mounted forward of that panel, so many Miata drivers have notched that panel to be able to reach forward to the shock top.  The panel divides two interior spaces (the trunk and the access tunnel between the trunk and the cabin) so it is an interior panel, not an exterior panel.

---

John S.
S2000 #42as

Orthonormal:

Some metal is okay.  For example, Miatas have a metal partition between the trunk space and the fuel filler pipes.  The shock top is mounted forward of that panel, so many Miata drivers have notched that panel to be able to reach forward to the shock top.  The panel divides two interior spaces (the trunk and the access tunnel between the trunk and the cabin) so it is an interior panel, not an exterior panel.

 That panel is removable and pre-notched on 06+ Miata's
 

---

Mark Hirt
2007 MX-5 MS-R
Bowman Race Kart - rented
Webmaster Chicago Region SCCA

TeamRX8:

In Stock you can't drill holes through metal for accessing shock adjusters

I don't read that in the rulebook.  The prohibition is on drilling through panels that are either structural or form part of the body of the vehicle.  I'll grant that there are few interior panels constructed of metal, but they do exist.

---

ES ~ '94 Mazda Miata

True, the panel is removable on all Miatas.  On the 99-05 cars it was 3 10mm bolts.  Some people just did that.  There is a small notch in the panel for clearance of the end of the trunk lid spring, and the common access method was to either cut or bend back the edges of the notch so that a hand would fit through.  I preferred bending, since there was no removal of material and it reduced the probability of slicing open my wrist when I pulled my hand back out.

---

John S.
S2000 #42as

Howdy,

I'm probably spitting on someone's sacred cow, but what exactly would be the problem with someone wanting to drill a hole (that serves no other purpose) anywhere they want to allow access to a shock/strut adjuster? 

I agree the rules don't say that now, but I don't see why it would be a bad thing to allow.  Its all about convience.  The individual competitor can decide between convienent shock adjustments and poor resale/leaky floor... Why's the SCCA care?

 

Mark
 

marka:

Howdy,

I'm probably spitting on someone's sacred cow, but what exactly would be the problem with someone wanting to drill a hole (that serves no other purpose) anywhere they want to allow access to a shock/strut adjuster? 

I agree the rules don't say that now, but I don't see why it would be a bad thing to allow.  Its all about convience.  The individual competitor can decide between convienent shock adjustments and poor resale/leaky floor... Why's the SCCA care?

 

Mark
 

Not my sacred cow! However, the hole would have to be ONLY big enough for the adjuster.

---

Glenn L. Austin, Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver
2005 Ultra Yellow Nissan 350Z Track Model
Austin-Soft.com
Author of AXAnalyst and PAXitis

marka:

Howdy,

I'm probably spitting on someone's sacred cow, but what exactly would be the problem with someone wanting to drill a hole (that serves no other purpose) anywhere they want to allow access to a shock/strut adjuster? 

I agree the rules don't say that now, but I don't see why it would be a bad thing to allow.  Its all about convience.  The individual competitor can decide between convienent shock adjustments and poor resale/leaky floor... Why's the SCCA care?

 

I'm sure there's a reason I can't think of, but I sure as hell wouldn't protest someone who drilled a small hole for the purpose of accessing an adjuster.  Furthermore, I would relentlessly mock anybody who did so.

---

John Vitamvas
1990 GTUs - STS fodder

TeamRX8:

there's no hair splitting; In Stock you can't drill holes through metal for accessing shock adjusters

One of these days you should actually tear the plastic off your rule book and read it.  Seriously.

Between your interesting take on option package conversions back in July (see the Solstice GXP Z0K thread) and this little gem, it appears there are some differences between the rulebook you have in your head and the one the rest of us poor schlubs had to buy.

Given the defensive way you have dealt with criticism in the past, I'm sure you are going to view this as just another personal attack from the peasantry, but it really is not intended that way.  I don't know you at all - I think I met you once.  For all I know, you are a great guy who is kind to animals and small children.  However, If you are going to serve on official SCCA committees (which I think you do) and also come on these forums and make comments about the rules (which you also do), the least you could do is actually RTFM.

EDIT:  Just to clarify, the rulebook says "interior panels" - there is nothing about "metal."  That's what I object to in Mark's post.  I agree with the consensus opinion in this thread that SnaponBob is clearly out of luck regarding drilling holes in his trunk.

- Nick

 

---

Just two guys in a Miata - what's everyone looking at?

SpyderVenom:

Structure: part of a load bearing assembly. 

What if the load bearing is frictionless?

Pat

---

'92 Sentra SE-R, FSP | '82 Camaro Z28, ESP, 65% prepared, 50% ownership

Solo LOL

NickFlynn:

EDIT:  Just to clarify, the rulebook says "interior panels" - there is nothing about "metal."  That's what I object to in Mark's post.  I agree with the consensus opinion in this thread that SnaponBob is clearly out of luck regarding drilling holes in his trunk.
- Nick

Nick, thanks for the "moral" support. First, the intent vs. word of the rule looms heavy on this. In the rulebook it says "Interior panels are defined to be those pieces which cover the interior of the vehicle and are accessible from inside the vehicle. They do not include structural panels, such as wheel wells or inner fenders, which may also be accessible from inside the car but which actually form part of the body of the vehicle." The wording lacks clarity. If it limited access to 'reached directly from the area defined as the passenger compartment' then hatchbacks and station wagons have the same limitation as coupes and convertibles. There is no logical reason that a guy with Penskes or Motons has earned the right to punch holes for ease of mounting and use while the guy with "conventional" shocks is effectively penalized. It isn't a technical issue, it's a fairness issue. ANY Kappa owner has the same problem with Koni SAs. Maybe even DAs, but I would know since I have not seen them. But the same problem certainly exists in other cars. I have figured a "workaround" on the shock so my problem is resolved. But for now I am going to simply set the rears where I want them and "tune" the fronts as needed. Someone else said that probably nobody would protest this issue ---- and I have been protested for less in the past. (didn't loose, either.) Bottom line, SCCA should take a look at the rule book, take input from competitors, and start "tightening up" the wording.

---

Bob Buxbaum
Lee's Summit, Mo.

Can't wait for Lincoln 2010 !!!!!

NickFlynn:

TeamRX8:

there's no hair splitting; In Stock you can't drill holes through metal for accessing shock adjusters

One of these days you should actually tear the plastic off your rule book and read it.  Seriously.

Between your interesting take on option package conversions back in July (see the Solstice GXP Z0K thread) and this little gem, it appears there are some differences between the rulebook you have in your head and the one the rest of us poor schlubs had to buy.

Given the defensive way you have dealt with criticism in the past, I'm sure you are going to view this as just another personal attack from the peasantry, but it really is not intended that way.  I don't know you at all - I think I met you once.  For all I know, you are a great guy who is kind to animals and small children.  However, If you are going to serve on official SCCA committees (which I think you do) and also come on these forums and make comments about the rules (which you also do), the least you could do is actually RTFM.

EDIT:  Just to clarify, the rulebook says "interior panels" - there is nothing about "metal."  That's what I object to in Mark's post.  I agree with the consensus opinion in this thread that SnaponBob is clearly out of luck regarding drilling holes in his trunk.

- Nick

 

I'm not going to defend Mark (he knows how to take care of himself :D), but the "metal" term as he used it is reasonable as a quick and dirty explanation, IMO.

---

clyde
#95 AS Corvette
TeamWTF?!

slowSER:

SpyderVenom:

Structure: part of a load bearing assembly. 

What if the load bearing is frictionless?

Pat

In that case, it is physically impossible to drill a hole.  The bit would just slide off the bearing without leaving a mark.

---

2002 Mercedes C230k, retired, 2005 Nationals STU DFL

1969 Beach Solo Vee and 1985 Lynx B Solo Vee

John V:

marka:

Howdy,

I'm probably spitting on someone's sacred cow, but what exactly would be the problem with someone wanting to drill a hole (that serves no other purpose) anywhere they want to allow access to a shock/strut adjuster? 

I agree the rules don't say that now, but I don't see why it would be a bad thing to allow.  Its all about convience.  The individual competitor can decide between convienent shock adjustments and poor resale/leaky floor... Why's the SCCA care?

 

I'm sure there's a reason I can't think of, but I sure as hell wouldn't protest someone who drilled a small hole for the purpose of accessing an adjuster.  Furthermore, I would relentlessly mock anybody who did so.

Picture this: you and another person are driving the same car make/model at the same event.  You followed the rules and didn't drill holes, but your competitor had.  After your first run, you know that the shock setting is wrong, but there's not enough time between runs to make a change.  Your competitor makes the change between his first and second run, then makes a further adjustment between second and third runs.  He beats you by a tenth or so.  Would protesting be such a weenie thing to do?  And would you mock your codriver if he protested?  In my view, there's a significant comeptitive advantage.

OTOH, if the guy that drilled holes didn't realize that he was breaking the rules when he did the drilling and subsequently refrained from making adjustments between runs, thus denying himself the competitive advantage, I'd see a protest as a weenie thing to do (which isn't saying that it would be invalid).

I'm also at a loss to figure out why it shouldn't be made an allowance.  The only thing that readily comes to mind is to prevent the potential unintended consequence effect should someone drill a hole in some car that compromises its safety or strucutral integrity leading to "soemthing bad happening."

---

clyde
#95 AS Corvette
TeamWTF?!

Lynn:

slowSER:

SpyderVenom:

Structure: part of a load bearing assembly. 

What if the load bearing is frictionless?

Pat

In that case, it is physically impossible to drill a hole.  The bit would just slide off the bearing without leaving a mark.

Or the bearing would spin forever and the car would never be able to get onto the dyno. (or the plane would not take off if conveyor belt was moving backwards).

(nothing like a 3 year old joke to keep us smiling)

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'86 MR2 in DM (LeMons car)
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

snaponbob:

If it limited access to 'reached directly from the area defined as the passenger compartment' then hatchbacks and station wagons have the same limitation as coupes and convertibles.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you think a hatchback would be treated differently than a sedan under the current wording.  Your suggested wording seems to allow access to the trunk of a car with fold-down seats but not in a car with a fixed rear seat.

snaponbob:

There is no logical reason that a guy with Penskes or Motons has earned the right to punch holes for ease of mounting and use while the guy with "conventional" shocks is effectively penalized.

I already responded to this as well: that is a separate issue.   Just because a bad rule can't be taken back doesn't mean that we should make another rule bad to match.

snaponbob:

Someone else said that probably nobody would protest this issue ---- and I have been protested for less in the past. (didn't loose, either.)

They said that they wouldn't protest such a modification, not that nobody will ever protest it.

---

John S.
S2000 #42as