SCCAForums.com

Just thought I would share my thoughts in the form of the letter I sent to the SEB regarding this issue.  Anyone agree or disagree?

 

 

April Fasttrack Member comment from member xxxxxx regarding the new 16.1.I

 

Gentlemen,

 

Regarding

 

Add new 16.1.I as follows (and renumber subsequent sections accordingly):

“Non-metallic inner fenders may be modified for tire clearance. This allowance does not allow for additional vertical

clearancing inboard of the hub face. Competitors are reminded that suspension attachment points on the chassis

may not be moved.”

 

I am whole heartedly against this proposal.  It seems to be a rule written specifically for one type of car rather than the class as a whole.  While I don’t begrudge the corvettes the opportunity to run as wide a tire as they wish, they should be required to get wider like every other type of car that wants wider tires.  Mini Tubbing seems more in line with the prepared rule

 

17.2 M. Inner fender panels separating the wheel wells from the engine

compartment may be altered, replaced, or removed. Rear inner

fender panels may be altered, replaced, or removed provided

there are panels providing total separation between driver/passenger

compartment and wheels. A shock/strut tower integral to

the inner fender panel is considered part of the inner fender panel

and is included in this allowance. This does not allow modification

of frame/frame stubs beyond Section 17.2.C.

 

This change also appears to be in direct conflict with the tire clearance allowances that SM/SM2 inherits from

15.2 BODYWORK

Vehicles may only exceed the allowances of 13.2 as specified herein.

A. Fenders and bumpers may be modified for tire clearance. This

includes the portion of a hood which serves as a fender/wheel

well, where applicable. This does not permit modifications to

the chassis or bodywork inboard of the vertical plane of the hub/

wheel mounting face (at rest, with front wheels straight ahead).

Flares may be added although tires may extend beyond the

bodywork. Replacement of complete hood, flared fenders, or

quarter panels is prohibited. Plastic and rubber wheel well

splash shields may be modified for tire clearance and for installation

of fender flares as allowed herein.

 

 

When you compare the intent of the rules

16. STREET MODIFIED CATEGORY

A. PURPOSE

To serve as a membership recruitment and retention tool by

providing a natural competition outlet for auto enthusiasts using

streetable sport sedans equipped with drivetrain and suspension

modifications that are beyond those allowed in the Street

Prepared category.

 

versus

17. PREPARED CATEGORY

A. Intent

It is the intent of these rules to allow modifications useful and

necessary in the preparation of a high performance, production

based non-street-driven vehicle.

 

It would certainly seem to me that there are very very few STREET DRIVEN corvettes that have mini tubs. 

 

Again, I strongly suggest this rule not be approved.

 

Thank you all for your time and commitment to making the sport as interesting and fair as possible,

--Chris

 

 

 

 

---

Chris
51 SM2

ChrisSwearingen:

 

April Fasttrack Member comment from member xxxxxx regarding the new 16.1.I

 

Gentlemen,

......      

 

They aren't all gentlemen... 

Chris,

 Please note, this proposal seems to be of limited benefit, due to the following: "This allowance does not allow for additional vertical clearancing inboard of the hub face. "   So the proposal may potentially let the 'vettes get a little lower, but I can't see where it lets them get any narrower.  

 -Steve 

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

MNbiker:

Chris,

 Please note, this proposal seems to be of limited benefit, due to the following: "This allowance does not allow for additional vertical clearancing inboard of the hub face. "   So the proposal may potentially let the 'vettes get a little lower, but I can't see where it lets them get any narrower.  

 -Steve 

Exactly the opposite. It lets the Corvettes get narrower but not lower. Are you familiar with the easily done Corvette mini-tub?

Commercial Mini Tub Kit

It allows the Corvettes to run a 345 tire inside the stock outer fenders! But, they have to chop out a part of the trunk floor. The "outside of the hub face" rule was made to prevent this and the Corvette is one of very few cars that can take advantage of this rule.

The only reason I could think for allowing it is that it IS a popular modification. A number of shops offer kits to modify the rear fenderwells.
 

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

modernbeat:

MNbiker:

Chris,

 Please note, this proposal seems to be of limited benefit, due to the following: "This allowance does not allow for additional vertical clearancing inboard of the hub face. "   So the proposal may potentially let the 'vettes get a little lower, but I can't see where it lets them get any narrower.  

 -Steve 

Exactly the opposite. It lets the Corvettes get narrower but not lower. Are you familiar with the easily done Corvette mini-tub?

Commercial Mini Tub Kit

It allows the Corvettes to run a 345 tire inside the stock outer fenders! But, they have to chop out a part of the trunk floor. The "outside of the hub face" rule was made to prevent this and the Corvette is one of very few cars that can take advantage of this rule.

The only reason I could think for allowing it is that it IS a popular modification. A number of shops offer kits to modify the rear fenderwells.
 

I am obviously not a corvette guy, so I will defer to your experience on how popular the modification is.  If we want to allow the corvettes to optimize their tire options by modifying the inner fender  why not change the rule to be

Add new 16.1.I as follows (and renumber subsequent sections accordingly):

“Inner fenders may be modified for tire clearance.  Competitors are reminded that suspension attachment points on the chassis

may not be moved.”

Then everyone can modify to fit whatever tires they deem appropriate.  With a little inner fender modification ( metallic and vertical clearance) you could put a 275/35ZR18 on a Miata, or if the 275 weight rule isn't approved even a 335/30ZR18.  Okay, maybe that's overkill, but it's possible, and might become a popular modification.  I guess the point I am trying to make is, we are starting down a slippery slope that ends in Prepared.
 

 

---

Chris
51 SM2

modernbeat:

Exactly the opposite. It lets the Corvettes get narrower but not lower. Are you familiar with the easily done Corvette mini-tub?

Commercial Mini Tub Kit

It allows the Corvettes to run a 345 tire inside the stock outer fenders! But, they have to chop out a part of the trunk floor. The "outside of the hub face" rule was made to prevent this and the Corvette is one of very few cars that can take advantage of this rule.

The only reason I could think for allowing it is that it IS a popular modification. A number of shops offer kits to modify the rear fenderwells.
 

I'm very familiar with the mini-tub procedure for 'vettes.  However, the proposed wording specifically indicates mini-tubs must still adhere to the hub face limitation.  What am I missing?

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

Howdy,

MNbiker:

modernbeat:

Exactly the opposite. It lets the Corvettes get narrower but not lower. Are you familiar with the easily done Corvette mini-tub?

Commercial Mini Tub Kit

It allows the Corvettes to run a 345 tire inside the stock outer fenders! But, they have to chop out a part of the trunk floor. The "outside of the hub face" rule was made to prevent this and the Corvette is one of very few cars that can take advantage of this rule.

The only reason I could think for allowing it is that it IS a popular modification. A number of shops offer kits to modify the rear fenderwells.
 

I'm very familiar with the mini-tub procedure for 'vettes.  However, the proposed wording specifically indicates mini-tubs must still adhere to the hub face limitation.  What am I missing?

I think you guys are illustrating one of my concerns with the proposed rule... It would seem to be targeted at corvette mini-tubbing, but the wording isn't very clear due to the limitation.

I _think_ what they wanted to say was that you couldn't change the _top_ of the wheel well / inner fender for for more vertical clearance, but you could change the inner wall (i.e. mini-tub).

I don't have a problem with that, particularly.  I do think it should apply to all cars, not just the corvette though.  Remove the material restriction.

Actually, I like the wording someone wrote above the best... Allow modification to the inner  fender (any part of the inner fender) for tire clearance.  This would take the rule "back" to how SP was interpreted by some before the hub face rule change / clarification and I think its appropriate for a class like SM.

Coming from Prepared, the primary difference between Prepared and SM in this area is that in Prepared you're welcome to modify the chassis as necessary to run bigger tires where you want them / lower the car / correct suspension geometry.  SM doesn't allow any of that, and an allowance to do whatever you'd like with inner fenders won't, IMHO result in way lower or even way narrower cars (there's usually some parts of the car just on the other side of that inner fender that won't let you tuck the wheel in past the innermost part...)

I think it provides a nice transistion on the chassis side from SP to SM to P, with each having a "reason for being"

Mark

I see the mini tubbing proposal as a benefitting one car, and doing so by violating a basic tennet of SM, that being that the chassis is sacred.  I hope that there are enough letters to stop it.  Get to writing guys!

marka:

I _think_ what they wanted to say was that you couldn't change the _top_ of the wheel well / inner fender for for more vertical clearance, but you could change the inner wall (i.e. mini-tub).

If that's what the SMAC meant the rule to say, they could have worded the proposal more clearly.

This proposal definitely deserves some letters.  Send them to: seb@scca.com  

 

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

marka:

Coming from Prepared, the primary difference between Prepared and SM in this area is that in Prepared you're welcome to modify the chassis as necessary to run bigger tires where you want them / lower the car / correct suspension geometry.  SM doesn't allow any of that, and an allowance to do whatever you'd like with inner fenders won't, IMHO result in way lower or even way narrower cars (there's usually some parts of the car just on the other side of that inner fender that won't let you tuck the wheel in past the innermost part...)

<this isn't directed at you, Mark.  But your post highlighted a point for me> 

You guys need to look at some Prepared cars, especially CP, to see what kinds of mods this will open up.  And not just at the rear.  Oftentimes the "inner fender" is a structural component like the shock tower, or at least a dual-purpose item where other things mount there.  How will you decipher it then?

I was part of the group that wrote the SP hub face clarification because the existing "flaring" allowance was being used by some to do mini-tubbing, the latter being completely outside of what was intended.  IMO, i you go this route for SM, now you are opening up a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.  Any time you start having chassis mods like like, but still try to maintain "stock tub" you run into trouble.  Witness the continuing de-evolution of DM/EM.  Back in the day, it was all tub-based stuff, but has now evolved into factions: one touts mere silouhettes and while others argue the traditional interpretation.

XP was created as the bridge between SM, P, and DM/EM.  It's where the tub itself starts to open up.  Moving that back into SM just creeps the rules, big time.  And the differences between a regional SM car and a national one will just get larger.  And isn't that one of the big participation problems?  The perception of high-dollar cars?  More mods = more money.

--Andy