THSCC Forums

Replacing those L's with U's is not stock legal. Cannot weld any attachments or reinforcements. The links are free, but not their attachment to the car.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

On the front bar? They most certainly are. Everything's free for the front bar per the rules.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

Wes is correct - it is legal. This is a fairly common practice. We also did it on the Spyder...moved the attachment point and made our own attachment point to the lower control arm.

Eric

I don't know what rulebook y'all are reading, but in the 2006 book under stock class rules 13.7:
4. No modification to the body, frame or other components to
accommodate anti-roll bar addition or substitution is allowed,
except for the drilling of holes for mounting bolts. Nonstandard
lateral members which connect between the brackets
for the bar are not permitted.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
If you have some other reference allowing changing moving or adding to the endlink mounts please let me know where to find it, I might need it when prepping the Solstice.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

To me that reads like you can drill holes and use whatever kind of mount you want to use.

_________________
In need of car.

not welding on different or reinforced endlink mounts on control arms or other suspension members. A lot of MR2 guys would be reinforcing the mounts on their front struts , ask Jim P.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

I'll look at the rules and interpretation when I actually have some time. For the record, on the Spyder we bolted a new attachment brakets to the lower control arm in a different factory hole - I have no doubt that was legal at the time. As far as this question goes on the Miata I'll get more information and share it on the forum when I get a chance.

Eric

So instead of welding just bolt them on.

_________________
In need of car.

That is definitely an option, though the lower control arm isn't a nice flat piece of steel like the Spyder so it may not be as easy. I've sent off an inquiry to the SCCA and will let everyone know what I hear back. Thanks for all the feedback & info.

Eric

We did reinforce the mounts with welded backing plates and gussets on the strut. I never understood how it was legal. But all the MR2's running the ST bar had it done. Otherwise, you end up with the problem I had at the DC Tour...the end link ripped right out of the strut mount.

_________________
Jim Pastorius
2008 Silverado VortecMax
1992 Camaro CMC#92
2002 BMW R1150R

2009 3rd Place CMC Mid-Atlantic Championship
2009 CMC Hyperfest Winner

Under the rules as they look right now, there's no allowance for changing end-links or the swaybar mounts, either. I'm fairly certain that the SEB interpretation of this is that the entire swaybar and mounting is open. In the case of the Miata I believe the interpretation is that since the tab on the lower control arm is welded then the location of it can't be changed, but a new (and different) piece can be welded there since it is *part of the swaybar*. That's why endlinks and mounts are considered free, too.

The part you guys are quoting is not a rule that has anything to do with the subject at hand, IMHO. That part is basically saying "don't go modifying your car to accept a swaybar in ways that were never originally intended." Basically you can't go stiffening the car or changing pickup points in any way that requires welding or drilling. On the Miata, the tab was welded and it broke and short of replacing the lower control arm, I'm not sure there's any FSM method of fixing that (which I'm sure nobody does). Welding something larger and heavier in the same place seems like it is within the spirit of the rules, particularly given the allowance we know we have on the swaybar mounts themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone already has a clarification on the Miata issue already, too.

On the Spyder we used factory holes, so again, I don't think there's an issue.


--Donnie

Just a followup to this...the '99, as I got it, already had those tabs changed to thicker metal versions of the same "L". By all accounts the tab on those control arms isn't nearly beefy enough to handle the 1.125 bar. In fact, Racing Beat sells a tab you can weld on *before* yours breaks that turns the OEM "L" into a "U" and supposedly those hold up pretty well, even to the 1.125" bar. I'm almost completely certain that any of these solutions is completely legal.


--Donnie

Rule #1: "If a modification is not explicitedly stated as allowed it isn't."

There are no "creative intrepretations" allowed.
I believe there was a discussion about the RB U mounts specifically on SCCA Forum, where the consensus was they were illegal. I do know that the drilling allowance was put in specifically to allow installing the heavier Miata mounts per Howard and Doug Gill.
Home office is closed until >1/2/07 So I guess we'll have to wait for a definitive answer.

_________________
SPIN or WIN!
there's no glory for going slow.

Gee, thanks for that insightful tip. But unfortunately it's not as absolute as you point out here, AND YOU KNOW THAT. You can also email and get a clarification from the SEB on items. You're also allowed to do what a factory FSM or TSB allows. And what about the case of the endlinks and FSB mounts? Those certainly aren't specifically mentioned anywhere, either. According to the clarifications I recall seeing on what is open on a FSB, I believe it's completely legal. If Doug comes back and says it isn't, I'd personally consider that a new clarification. I'd also probably open it up for debate. Because like I said, there's no way to "fix" this "legally" without replacing the entire control arm (regularly) since there is no OEM tab available. If you can replace it with an aftermarket one legally by some clarification somewhere, it just makes no sense to restrict the *shape* of the aftermarket piece.

Basically, the last clarification I recall seeing said that if a FSB had nowhere to attach its endlinks to, then it wasn't a FSB. Therefore the mounting tabs for the endlinks were open provided their mounting served no other purpose. Plus it simply wouldn't make any sense to allow big beefy mounts and huge bars and adjustable endlinks and *not* allow you to make the endlink tab something strong enough.

The real shame is that not every clarification they issue makes it into the rules.


--Donnie

From Appendix F of the current rulebook:



Can't believe I didn't go look there before. Note that 13.7 *still* doesn't currently say anything about "sway bar brackets", but I believe this clarification is there from when it *did* say sway bar brackets are open. *shrug*


--Donnie