SCCAForums.com

I can't find an allowance for something I'd like to do, but does anyone else read the rules differently?

What I'd like to do is to install a larger front radiator that vents through the front hood on a Lotus Europa with the engine in the rear that's set up for X-Prepared.

In the 2007 rule book, the applicable rules that I'm looking at are under Appendix A, Prepared Class X, 1.b

Hoods (engine covers), front fenders, front & rear fascias, and side skirts may be added, modified or replaced. Fenders may be flared as per Street Prepared (15.2.A) or Prepared (17.2.L, 17.2.M). Non-metallic fender liners may be modified, replaced, or removed. Body panels may be attached with removable fasteners (e.g. Dzus).

This implies that the hood can be replaced by an alternate with a vent or scoop as long as it's also the engine cover. For rear engined cars this seems to restrict the FRONT hood, but allows just about anything for the rear hood.

In the same Appendix, 7.a and d there are allowances for cooling and induction ducting.

a. Drive train and related systems (induction, ignition, fuel, electrical, cooling, oiling, etc.) and components (mounts, clutch, flywheel, etc.) are unrestricted except as noted.

d. Air may be ducted to the induction system. Openings in the bodywork to allow air to be ducted are allowed provided they serve no other purpose.

So any cooling modification is allowed, but ducting is only allowed for induction.

Does anyone know of any allowance that would allow me to vent the front hood, not over the engine, for cooling purposes? Is there anything in Fastrack this year that addresses it?

The only thing I found on SCCAForums about it would be a similar discussion regarding SM rules.  http://sccaforums.com/forums/thread/122449.aspx

JRM

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

I'd agree the rules only seem to allow hood venting for front engine cars.  However, it seems reasonable to let mid/rear engine cars improve airflow  through radiators.  The only potential issue I can foresee is that such hood venting could be utilized to create far more effective aero than in a front engine car.  You may need to write a letter to the PAC/SEB on this one. 

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

I could see opening up that allowance a bit, to include hoods AND engine covers (if they are seperate).  The Elise already has both of those attributes from the factory.

 

 

Stan Whitney:

I could see opening up that allowance a bit, to include hoods AND engine covers (if they are seperate).  The Elise already has both of those attributes from the factory.

 

 

In a class as crazy as XP, I don't see why that rule is as restrictive as it is.  I agree with Stan. 

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

I have installed a larger radiator in the front of my Europa, it vents to the front wheel wells just like the stock unit does, I get plenty of cooling with this setup.

 

Jesus

---

Jesus Villarreal
D mod Europa

New proposal from the March '08 Fastrack

b. Hoods (engine covers), front fenders, front & rear fascias, and side skirts may be added, modified or replaced

without penalty. All cars may choose to modify or replace the front or rear (engine cover or trunk lid), but not both.

Fenders may be flared as per Street Prepared (15.2.A) or Prepared (17.2.L, 17.2.M). Non-metallic fender liners may

be modified, replaced, or removed. Body panels may be attached with removable fasteners (e.g. Dzus).

Looks like we may get our choice of front or rear hoods to vent. Thanks for considering my letter guys.

This is a recomendation still. Please write in.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

I'd encourage folks to also read the SM proposal that is out for comment. It might make sense that the P rule not be more restrictive than the SM rule.

“Front hoods, engine covers, trunk lids and hatches not containing glass, front fenders, rear fenders not part of chassis structure (unibody), front & rear facias, and side skirts may be modified or replaced, and may be attached with removable fasteners..."

---

Randy Noll

rnoll98:

I'd encourage folks to also read the SM proposal that is out for comment. It might make sense that the P rule not be more restrictive than the SM rule.

“Front hoods, engine covers, trunk lids and hatches not containing glass, front fenders, rear fenders not part of chassis structure (unibody), front & rear facias, and side skirts may be modified or replaced, and may be attached with removable fasteners..."

The PAC is aware of this issue.  In my opinion, no one intended XP rules to be more restrictive than SM, it just by chance happened that Prepared & SM proposals were published for the same allowances in the same Fastrack.  Please send your comments to: SEB@scca.com.

Unofficial, only my opinion, etc., etc.

Steve Garnjobst 

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

Recieved my log numbers for my letter pertaining to both this and the weight with driver issues.

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

These things almost make me want to buy a Miata and fall into the line of sheep in C Stock or something.

---

Want to go faster, please send money.

Joe,

You seem to be a very opinionated dude with not much positive to say about our club, the rules, and those volunteers who propose the rules (not to be confused with those who make the rules, as that would be the membership).  Maybe it is time for you to step up and volunteer your time to the club and get things straightened out for the rest of us. 

Just a thought

-Chris

---

EP 82 - 1985 Honda CRX
RMDiv. SEB

Last time I complained  about how things were going I became Assistant RE for my region.

You're right I'll shut up now.

 

Just saying by the time I build something to the rules the rules change.  Am I alone on this?

---

Want to go faster, please send money.

Joe_914:

Just saying by the time I build something to the rules the rules change.  Am I alone on this?

The only true constant is change.  Either we adapt or get left behind.  Even if the rules remain unchanged somebody will find something in them that can be interpreted differently or overlooked all together.  So the rules evolve, change, even when left unchanged. 

There are classes where the rules are more stable than others.  Stock has been pretty stable as a ruleset.  The car's change all the time, but the rules have been relatively stable.  A, B and C Modified have been quite stable for some time.  So have the cars.  A-Mod's listing in Apendix A is two sentances.  The only real change has been to add Formula SAE and Formula S. 

 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
2006 DP National Champion
'98, '99, '00, '02 DSP National Champion
http://www.terriehoward.com

I almost think you have to welcome change with open arms when you decided to build a car for an infant class like XP.  It is probably something you have to accept before you ever make the first cut.

 Big picture: Prepared is a pretty stable category when you consider the changes currently taking place in other established categories like SP.

-Chris

---

EP 82 - 1985 Honda CRX
RMDiv. SEB

epcrx:

Joe,

You seem to be a very opinionated dude with not much positive to say about our club, the rules, and those volunteers who propose the rules (not to be confused with those who make the rules, as that would be the membership).  Maybe it is time for you to step up and volunteer your time to the club and get things straightened out for the rest of us. 

Just a thought

-Chris

 

Can someone tell me the logic path that came up with the newest hood or engine cover or trunk idea that went in the direct opposite direction of SM2?  I'm just curious, and I don't see where it came from.
 

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

129STS:

Can someone tell me the logic path that came up with the newest hood or engine cover or trunk idea that went in the direct opposite direction of SM2?  I'm just curious, and I don't see where it came from.

Jesse,

No real mystery.  The proposal for Prepared brings XP language into sync with the current SM/SM2 rules.  Unfortunately, the PAC proposal was published at the same time the SMAC published a proposal to change the current SM/SM2 wording.  In a perfect world, the two AC's would have reviewed each other's proposals before publishing.  But that would be pretty tough to pull off, with volunteer groups who only meet monthly.  Keep in mind, these are only proposals, so they can still be revised before becoming rules.

-Steve

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

MNbiker:

129STS:

Can someone tell me the logic path that came up with the newest hood or engine cover or trunk idea that went in the direct opposite direction of SM2?  I'm just curious, and I don't see where it came from.

Jesse,

No real mystery.  The proposal for Prepared brings XP language into sync with the current SM/SM2 rules.  Unfortunately, the PAC proposal was published at the same time the SMAC published a proposal to change the current SM/SM2 wording.  In a perfect world, the two AC's would have reviewed each other's proposals before publishing.  But that would be pretty tough to pull off, with volunteer groups who only meet monthly.  Keep in mind, these are only proposals, so they can still be revised before becoming rules.

-Steve

 

Why did the PAC want to do a take-back away allowances in Prepared the close the gap between SM/SM2 and XP?  What's the goal of closing the gap between SM2 and XP?

---

Jesse
-2002-2006 E-stock 93 MR2 (sold)
-2007-2008 XP Spyder

129STS:

Why did the PAC want to do a take-back away allowances in Prepared the close the gap between SM/SM2 and XP?  What's the goal of closing the gap between SM2 and XP?

Jesse,

This proposal was developed prior to my joining the PAC, so I wasn't party to the discussions.  However, I'm not aware of any desire to "close the gap" between SM2 and XP.   I think there's a general consensus that a smooth transition from SM/SM2 to XP is desireable, but I've heard no talk of take-backs for XP.  Quite the contrary - as a group, the PAC seems very focused on providing stability for car builders.

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

129STS:

[

 

Why did the PAC want to do a take-back away allowances in Prepared the close the gap between SM/SM2 and XP?  What's the goal of closing the gap between SM2 and XP?

 

Jesse--

I'm not aware of any take backs in XP.  If you have an example, let me know. 

As Steve has said, the SM and XP hood/trunk rules were published at the same time.  And a fix to make the rule similar for SM and XP being discussed

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata