So with nationals over and some bench racing of car build ups, I didn't see anyone mention the proposed changes for StreetMod/2. But basically it looks like they finally got around to making subframe provisions, which would somewhat open up what Honda types call the crossmember(s).

This would in theory allow the crossmember/traction bars like Z10, JimFab, FullRace, etc. type of part. But under these current provisions, if I interpret them correctly, those would all still be illegal since they violate 16.1.G.a. Specifically, the "No new attachment points..", since they typically utilize the front tow hook mounting points. And to a lesser extent retaining "the OE bolt configuration...", since they sometimes use less of them.

Not really looking to get into a debate whether the component is worthwhile, that's up to the individual to test and tune and weigh the cost/benefits. But just FYI, if you do want/plan to use one of these, might want to send a letter to the SMAC with rewords/rephrasings that would accomodate your component of choice.

Get it here: http://www.scca.org/_Filelibra...k.pdf

SOLO II STREET MODIFIED CATEGORY
The SMAC is requesting member feedback
regarding the following rule change
proposal, effective 1/1/2006:
Item 5) Add new section 16.1.G as follows
and renumber subsequent sections
accordingly:
“G. Cars that use subframes that bolt
to the unit body/body in white to mount
engines, transmissions, differentials, steering,
or suspension components may
replace those subframes with subframes of
alternate construction, subject to the following
limitations:
a) The interface between the new subframe
and the body-in-white must retain the OE
bolt configuration. No new attachment
points may be created, and the OE attachment
points on the body-in-white may not
be modified in any manner. Bolt lengths
may be changed, but not diameter or number.
b) Replacement subframes may not be tied
in any fashion to any other subframe on
the car beyond what attachments existed
in the stock configuration.
c) Cars that use body-on-frame or 'ladder
frame' construction, such that the body of
the car can be removed from the frame
independently from the suspension on
both ends of the car, may not make use of
this allowance and must retain the OE
frame unit.
d) The relocation of components carried by
the subframe (engine, suspension, etc) and
the associated modifications to geometry
(wheelbase, track, etc) provided by the
alternate construction of the replacement
subframe, if any, is allowed.
e) Any car making use of this allowance
must add 15% to its minimum weight."
The following rule change proposal,
effective 1/1/2006, is submitted for member
comment per SMAC recommendation:
ITEM 6) Add to 16.1.D. "The unlimited fuel
system allowance in 16.1.D is not intended
to overrule the fuel tank requirements of
Street Prepared. The installation of a fuel
cell should be done in accordance with
15.2.I"
The previously-published proposal
regarding SM ballast, effective 1/1/2005,
has been revised to read as follows and is
being recommended to the BOD:
Item 7) Add new section 16.1.P as follows:
"Ballast may be added. Ballast must
be a maximum of 50 lbs. per segment. It
must be securely mounted in either the
spare tire well or the trunk."

 

The crossmember that the steering and suspension bolt to in Hondas isn't affected by Honda traction bars as far as I know. Also, the 15% weight penalty in a FWD makes the whole thing pointless and counterproductive in a FWD anyway.

This is mainly to allow tubular k-members and such for the Mustangs to hopefully lighten them up legally in the class. They still can't get close to minimum RWD NA weight even with a 15% penalty.

 

Yes true, the aftermarket rear crossmembers I've seen utilize the OEM mounting points, no less/no more, so they'd be legal. But I haven't seen one made for more than a couple Honda/Acura models and that was quite a few years ago. And the company that was selling/making them has changed focus, discontinued production. Of course there is always custom or even, modifying one to comply.

Granted the 15% is so harsh that it discourages this for any but someone in the Pony cars situation. But this is over a year out from implementation, so even that %-age number could get lowered (or raised for that matter). I've been loosely following that whole Prepared rules fiacso and noticed that through the revisions, the various weight penalties have almost all been dropped or have proposed to be removed.

 

Yeah, this whole rule smells Mustang so that they can use the popular Griggs or MM parts. The 15% percent penalty is there just so that nobody else with, say, a Civic, gets any ideas about rigging up a tubular x-member. I doubt even the fbody crowd can gain anything from this rule. And I dont really have a problem with the rule itself other than that the whole thing is written in such a way as to only be used by Mustangs and prevent most everyone else from implementing it.

 

The M3's are still pretty far off minimum weight too. If they can lose 50 lbs while gaining 300 lbs of minimum weight they'll still be 250 lbs above minimum. And if they can do it while changing suspension pickup points, I bet somebody will try it too.

 

RWD: 2400 pounds (< or equal to 3L )
RWD: 2500 pounds (>3L)


that means that a M3 has to be 2760 if it's still got the '95 3L motor, and 2875 if it's got a >3L motor. With Vic Sias's car, it's already ~2650 lbs, and 3.3L motor with over 350 whp.

It's so Mustangs at least have a CHANCE, which is cool IMO. so what if you can't tube frame the front of your civic. Go play in EP if you want to do that.

 

Wow, did those get moved higher since 2002? I don't remember them being so high for are dubbya dee.

 

so accordign to that i am illiegal. Dman looks like i gotta take the bars off at the track!