THSCC Forums

I'm really NOT trying to be argumentative, just looking for clarification as to what is and isn't legal. At some point in the argument the "hip bone is attached to the thigh bone is attached to the shin bone is attached to the ankle bone..." we are no longer at the hip bone.
In 13.7 they do talk about brackets:
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.
To me they are talking about the mounts on the chassis that support the bar (and its bushings) not the attachments that connect the endlinks to the control arms, there would be no plausable way to have lateral members connecting the end link attachments.
In this context usage I would say that in appendix F the "upper flat bracket" is the mount that is attached to the chassis and the "lower U shaped bracket" is the (more correctly omega shaped) strap that clamps the bushing to the upper bracket. Again that rule and clarification was added to allow for the replacement of the sheetmetal mount with a beefed up mount on the M2 since technically the OEM mount was tack welded to the chassis. That clarification was published in ~ 2000 IIRC after a rash of 99 Sport mount failures and is specific to the Miata. I bought my beefed up mounts from Mazda Speed right after, and in response to, that clarification.
At this point Lets just agree to disagree about the endlink mounts until the Home Office staff returns.

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

My take is that the words that you bolded is referring to what the green arrow is pointing to in this pic. It is the only thing not allowed in that picture according to the stock class rules.

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.

Just an update on this topic...when I sent the e-mail to SCCA on this matter I also asked someone about it who served on the protest committee when my car (then Telehowski's) was unsuccessfully protested at the 2004 Toledo Pro several years ago over the reinforced frame mounts. Telehowski had already talked to Howard Duncan to get clarification about his mounts well before putting them on the car, actually I'm reasonably sure he did it several years earlier, based on some internet posts he made in 2000 or 2001. Since this protest (executed by Darrin DiSimo) was well known it also helped to clarify the sway bar mounting issue for many Miata drivers.

The protest committee member stated their reasoning on the mounts (and they recalled the SEB's as well) was that if the car had come from the factory with *no* swaybar, the rulebook would allow you to fabricate any mount to attach the swaybar to the frame, as long as it served no other purpose (chasis stiffening, etc). They stated, while not having seen the attachment on my lower control arm (LCA), it would seem that the LCA attachment point for the end link wold fall into the same category. "Since attaching hardware is free, the same reasoning as above would allow the use of a more substantial mount to attach the end link to the LCA as well." Note: It's interesting that this is the second time I've talked to someone this past week with a lot more knowledge than I about this topic that has commented that *if* the car did not come with a swaybar you are allowed to fabricate mounts to attach it to the car.

FWIW, at Tours and Nationals most competitors have to take their wheels off one side of the cars and put them on jack stands to make it easier for competitors to inspect their cars in impound. So, my mount was in plain view for everyone to see at Nationals.

Once again, I'll let everyone know what the SCCA says when I get an answer, hopefully next week.

Eric

Exactly right Wes. The discussion is not about the legality of the mount area in the picture (except the cross brace as you say), just about the legality of reinforcing, moving, or otherwise altering the mounting tab on the control arm for the link connection. I highlighted those words in an attempt to define the word "bracket" in the rule.
The supplimental clarification was a direct result of the Telehowski protest. The protest was based on if the OEM mount could be legally removed/replaced since it was originallyspot welded to the frame. Therefore was it a replacable part or a permanent part of the chassis? I had talked at length with Steve and Howard about the swaybar mount issue at the time, we were racing our Miata then so I was concerned about it.
Had Steve doubled up the tab on the control arm prior to the protest?
Please don't take this in any negative way Eric, "yah know I love ya man",
but don't you think your car likely received a lot less scrutiny at nationals by not being in the jacket position? I don't recall many protests of cars lower than the top 2 or 3. Plus most know the car had been declared legal when Steve had it, and might assume it is being run in the same condition?
I look forwards to hearing the clarification, our car is scheduled to arrive around the end of the month.

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

I can almost guarantee it was already done, yes.



Like I said before, I'm fairly certain *most* national Miatas have a similar modification done already. I'm also quite sure this car won at least one championship with this mod already done, too. Probably more.


--Donnie

Please find below Doug Gill's (SCCA Solo Technical Director) response to my questioins about what is permitted regarding the "L" bracket on the lower control arm that is the attachment point for the end link.

It looks like Jason Mauldin was the only one who had the complete correct interpretation of the rule...Chuck, Donnie, and I were all partially right *and* partially wrong. You can locate the attachment point where ever you want and you can use "U" brackets or reinforced "L" brackets as long as they are bolted on and not welded. Hence, the reason there was *no* problem all of our Spyders.

Since you can't buy a replacement "L" bracket (only a whole new LCA) and it doesn't appear to be practical to bolt anything on the LCA because the metal is so thin, I've sent Doug one more question to confirm that fabricating an "L" that is close to factory spec is OK. I'm not sure how I'm going to fix mine yet, but will figure that out soon (i.e., new LCAs...which seems crazy or fabricate new pieces).

Anyway, thanks to everyone for your comments and input..it is much better to have matters figured out here on a local forum than in the protest shed

Here's Doug's response....

My take is the welded-on bracket is part of the control arm and is not allowed to be removed – it has to physically be there whether used or not. You can add material to strengthen the L-bracket or add another bracket to make it a “U” but only if it’s bolted on – not welded. You don’t have to use the standard bracket; you could use another bracket as long as the standard bracket is there.

I’m going by past SEB clarifications of welded-on pieces in general and 13.7.4 which allows only drilling and bolting – no welding.

Hope this helps.

- Doug

Doug Gill responded to my question about repairing the broken L bracket. In short, he suggests that the bracket 1) either be repaired to exact factory standard to avoid a possible protest from a picky protesting party....and suggested that too much or little weld could be a problem for someone, or 2) buy a whole new lower control arm. So, I'm going to order two brand new LCA's and either install them and hope for no more breakages *or* modify them by bolting on a new/additional mounting point.

Eric

Thanks for the clarification Eric.

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

FINALLY going to get an alignment on the Miata today. I have already tried to get it close in the garage w/ a bubble camber gauge and string, and I have a question for those in the know:

Any tricks to getting more camber?

I was able to get about 1.3 on the left by rotating the adjuster to "max", then applying a prybar to the LCA while tightening. HOWEVER the right side w/ same technique only got to 0.9 degree, so I'm trying to figure out a way to add another few tenths of a degree.

Loosen upper A-arm pivots and retighten w/ force applied?

Loosen lower A-arm strut attach and retighten w/ force?

Other ideas or things that have worked?

_________________
Mike Whitney
whit32@gmail.com, 919-454-5445
V10, V8, V8t, I6, I6, V6, F4t, I4, I4, I4, I4, I2, 1, 1

Letting Howard at Sturdivant's do it?

_________________
Has no responsibility whatsoever.