SCCAForums.com

Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but I understand that the SEB has only received 2 letters (both in support).

If you guys out there want improved cooling, please take a minute to just drop a quick note.

If you have an older SP car and having cooling issues (wanting to upgrade the radiator) -- please send email to
seb@scca.org--

 http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-jan-solo.pdf

---

1987 Chevy IROC Z/28
#68 ESP
ARSCCA

Actually, please look at the Feb Fastrack, as it contains the reworded, latest proposal

Feb Fastrack

-Steve 

Oooops.

 

Thanks very much for pointing that out.

Either way, we need to write letters in support if it is desired.

 

STREET PREPARED CATEGORY
· The SPAC has provided an updated version of their proposal for a new subsection 15.10.I, regarding radiators, as follows:
“15.10.I Engine cooling radiators may be replaced with alternate parts subject to the following restrictions:
1) Radiator core dimensions (width, height, thickness) must be no smaller than the standard part.
2) Radiator must mount to OE radiator mounts.
3) Fluid capacity /_and dry weight_/ of radiator must be no less than that of the standard part.
Alternate radiators may serve no other purpose (e.g. to allow a cold air intake passage).”

---

1987 Chevy IROC Z/28
#68 ESP
ARSCCA

I sent a letter back on October 16, 2007.  Doug Gill replied and let me know that it was logged.

My letter:

"Hello, I was wondering if the SEB had thoughts about changing the radiator rules for street prepared? I run a Miata in CSP, but I also use the car for track days. The stock radiator does not offer enough cooling for these days, so I purchased a higher volume aluminum Koyo radiator. It mounts in the factory location and I don’t believe there’s any advantage for Solo 2. When I was getting ready to run the Salt Lake Pro Solo, teammates told me that I was not legal running the aluminum radiator. I re-installed my stock radiator to be legal for the event and asked fellow competitors why a bigger radiator was not legal. Jim Daniels and Ron Bauer explain to me that since there is no mention of changing the radiator in the rule book, you cannot touch it. I understand the SEB not wanting people to run smaller radiators, but I was installing something bigger. Can the SEB add a line in the SP section of the rule book to say that you can change the radiator, but it has to mount in the factory location and be equal or more volume? Or, is there another reason we’re not allowed to make this radiator change that I didn’t think about? Thanks for your time."

---

John
Utah Region, #23 CSP Miata

York:

I sent a letter back on October 16, 2007.  Doug Gill replied and let me know that it was logged.

My letter:

"Hello, I was wondering if the SEB had thoughts about changing the radiator rules for street prepared? I run a Miata in CSP, but I also use the car for track days. The stock radiator does not offer enough cooling for these days, so I purchased a higher volume aluminum Koyo radiator. It mounts in the factory location and I don’t believe there’s any advantage for Solo 2. When I was getting ready to run the Salt Lake Pro Solo, teammates told me that I was not legal running the aluminum radiator. I re-installed my stock radiator to be legal for the event and asked fellow competitors why a bigger radiator was not legal. Jim Daniels and Ron Bauer explain to me that since there is no mention of changing the radiator in the rule book, you cannot touch it. I understand the SEB not wanting people to run smaller radiators, but I was installing something bigger. Can the SEB add a line in the SP section of the rule book to say that you can change the radiator, but it has to mount in the factory location and be equal or more volume? Or, is there another reason we’re not allowed to make this radiator change that I didn’t think about? Thanks for your time."

 I think with this proposal, you're good to go, except this item addressing the dry weight, may be problematic for your aluminum unit...

"3) Fluid capacity /_and dry weight_/ of radiator must be no less than that of the standard part."

---

James Plotkin
'05 FSP Echo

No radiator problems personally but it makes sense so I sent my email to SEB in favor.

Thanks

DJ

---

DJsilver

email sent

I drive a 94 Integra GSR.
full-size Mishimoto dual-core aluminum radiator > OE single-core plastic-endtanked radiator ANY DAY.

---

-Kelly
Rocky Mountain Region Solo / Time Trials - 94 Integra SM.
Apex RacingGroup.com

Just sent my letter of support.  I'd love to be able to upgrade the stock rad in my RX-7 to a higher-capacity unit.  The one change I suggested was to require the 'wet weight' to be equal or greater than the stock part instead of the dry weight.
 

---

'89 RX-7 GTU
Speed in Gears Calculator

For aftermarket rads that are lighter than stock (dry), couldn't you weld on weights to ballast it up to the same weight as the stock piece? 

John

 

---

John Vitamvas
stranoparts.com / TeamWTF.org '04 Z06

Yes.  I suppose that you could add some weight to make it work. However, isn't the intent that you have added cooling capability to your car without enhancing the performance via a weight advantage.  Isn't MORE LIQUID going to be heavy and thus a small weight dis-advantage over stock?

 Yes.  Cooler cars WITHOUT performance advantange is the goal -- WET WEIGHT RADIATORS accomplishes this fact.  I agree -- let's strike the /DRY WEIGHT/ language -- it accomplishes nothing.

Brian LaRose
 

---

1987 Chevy IROC Z/28
#68 ESP
ARSCCA

BrianChevy:

Yes.  I suppose that you could add some weight to make it work. However, isn't the intent that you have added cooling capability to your car without enhancing the performance via a weight advantage.  Isn't MORE LIQUID going to be heavy and thus a small weight dis-advantage over stock?

 Yes.  Cooler cars WITHOUT performance advantange is the goal -- WET WEIGHT RADIATORS accomplishes this fact.  I agree -- let's strike the /DRY WEIGHT/ language -- it accomplishes nothing.

Brian LaRose

I wouldn't strike requirement #3 entirely.  Dimensions are already addressed by requirement #1, so there's no allowance for undersized units.  To address weight concerns I would simply change this:

3) Fluid capacity /_and dry weight_/ of radiator must be no less than that of the standard part.

to this:

3) Fluid capacity and wet weight of radiator must be no less than that of the standard part.

That's essentially what I recommended in my SEB letter.

Cheers,

Chris 

---

'89 RX-7 GTU
Speed in Gears Calculator

I just think that you need to be careful with this new rule, as if it does provide any kind of weight advantage, or significant performance advantage, it will therefore become a must-have item for each SP class, effectively increasing the cost of entry for everyone.

I think that the dry weight wordage is required, as without it someone can just replace there existing radiator with an identical version made of unobtainium and therefore save significant weight.

Couldn't you just run bigger radiator fans with the current rules to get around overheating? 

-Brian

---

89/189 STS/STX '89 Civic Si

BrianGT:

I think that the dry weight wordage is required, as without it someone can just replace there existing radiator with an identical version made of unobtainium and therefore save significant weight.

I guess I'm struggling to understand why dry weight should be a concern.  As the proposal is written (assuming a 'wet weight' parity clause), the scenario you describe is eliminated as a possibility.  If the core dimensions have to be the same or larger, and the wet weight is the same or greater, I don't give a hoot if the rad is made out of pig iron or unobtanium.  I suppose some enterprising competitor could choose to run their rad less than full to save a few pounds, but they could also do that under the current rules if they were so inclined.

---

'89 RX-7 GTU
Speed in Gears Calculator

Fault Bucket:

BrianGT:

I think that the dry weight wordage is required, as without it someone can just replace there existing radiator with an identical version made of unobtainium and therefore save significant weight.

I guess I'm struggling to understand why dry weight should be a concern.  As the proposal is written (assuming a 'wet weight' parity clause), the scenario you describe is eliminated as a possibility.  If the core dimensions have to be the same or larger, and the wet weight is the same or greater, I don't give a hoot if the rad is made out of pig iron or unobtanium.  I suppose some enterprising competitor could choose to run their rad less than full to save a few pounds, but they could also do that under the current rules if they were so inclined.

I am going to guess that the DRY weight is the requirement because if you have to weigh a radiator at an event it's going to be empty. unless everybody carry's some plugs to keep the fluid in.

The dry weight will be much easier to get than the wet weight, not that it should matter that it's easie. What about those engine tear downs? when was the last time somebody had to get their engine torn down because of a protest?

---

Alex Jones
2007 A-Street Prepared GXP
www.CrazyMonkeyRacing.com

because 285's were not enough...

Letter sent in support.

If you have the spec for dry weight, and you have the spec for fluid capacity then you HAVE the wet weight (with a little math) and you don't have to worry about ripping it out of the car...i think it's harder to prove the weight of a stock unit then it is the weight of the new unit simply for the fact that when you buy a new one you get all the sales information/specs. People may want to bring their original rad just to be able to extinguish anybodies hopes of a protest with both the wet weight, and the dry weight.

---

Bridesmaid Racing
2008 SCCA Nationals DS Runner-Up
2008 Kansas City NT DS Runner-Up
2008 Milwaukee NT DS Runner-Up
2007 SCCA Nationals DS Runner-Up
2007 Milwaukee NT DS Runner-Up
2006 ASN Nationals DS Runner-Up

Question:  would the words "Alternate radiators may serve no other purpose" preclude the use of a radiator with an integrated engine oil cooler?

The device's purpose would still be exclusively for engine cooling, but it would be cooling both water and oil.  This is a common configuration for cars that also see time on the track so I'm curious as to interpretation of legality under the new wording.