New Shock Tower Rule Request

#1

Racing these 25 year old grocery getters has been rough for the shock towers for a bunch of cars. Just in the SE we’ve seen one shock tower lose it’s spot welds and come off, the front clip separating from the fire wall, and shock towers moving towards each other.

After taking a look at the convertible and talking to some others it appears there is a $30 factory reinforcement piece that can be welded in (see attached picture) to attach the towers to the side of the car. This in conjunction with a strut bar should be enough to keep the towers in place and cars running as long as possible.

I’d like to see others thoughts and if this makes sense to keep the cars going.

http://i.imgur.com/WY6u3Uj.jpg

#2

Eric, great idea. I’ll reinforce (pun intended and well thought-out)the concept of adding strength to the cars the next time I talk to Carter. Laura’s car is now 10 years old and shows some signs of wear. We are constantly having to adress front camber as her car does not have camber plates. . Mine is 7 years old and the odometer was reset when I built it in 2005. It has 11,000 race miles on it. No jokes on my lack of talent for number of miles driven, please.

Again, great idea, wish I’d thunk it up.

RP

#3

The common wisdom in our series used to be that if front strut braces made any difference, it wasn’t enough that anyone could really tell. I think that’s changing to a new appreciation that our front towers are over-stressed. If you’re going to write a rule-change request, be sure to add a source and price for the parts, and an estimate or two from a shop on the install price. That way you can write something unambiguous like “3 cars have strut towers coming apart and strictly speaking, there is no good way to repair the torn sheetmetal such that the tower is both adequate strong and 100% legal. This rule change will allow participants to reinforce this weak area at a cost of ~$200”, or whatever.

#4

Great idea, however, another option that Nasa should consider & would be far reaching for the growth of the series Nationwide is to introduce/allow the convertible e30 as an option.
Lets face it, good donor cars are becoming a bit scarce & harder & harder to find (partially due to the cult following that are buying up all the good editions)& expensive vs convertibles that can be found for $200-500 all day long…
Yes, I am impartial since I own the only Nasa approved Spec e30 VERT in the US…

All this debate over the unfair advantage that a Vert chassis has over a standard sedan is crap. I have been beaten plenty of times this season by the best prepared sedans racing straight up & visa versa.

I have no intent on opening up a debate on VERT vs Sedan, however, in light of the shock tower stress & suggested recommendations to improve weak shock towers, allowing the vert would could just be another affordable option, especially if ones car is already junked up.

#5

IMHO, unless the vert has a stronger fender mount extension, adding that brace does nothing.

#6

It looks gooder.

Seriously, as in the rules that apply to other braces, the addition would be entirely optional. And I’m going to submitt for some other brace areas too.

It does look gooder.

RP

#7

Thanks Robert!

The guys at TRM that gave us this idea to strengthen the shock towers mentioned some additional parts underneath as well. We didn’t have a chance to get under the Fire Engine this past weekend to check them out.

The issue is not to haggle about a single brace extension but rather find a way to implement a simple and inexpensive reinforcement with stock factory parts that extends the “life” of our cars.

Following the lead of the factory with verts and their reinforced shock towers will help.

#8

Agree on both the strut brace and convertible thing. Parts cars are getting harder to come by.

#9

My iC race car was totaled so bad in the front when it was a street car that the motor and trans were destroyed…and it was a 318. Basically the front collapsed enough to move the motor back, I rebuilt the car but never had it on a frame machine…as a matter of fact I have never even aligned the car, which is pretty stupid on my part. That is how tough the iC’s are from the strut towers in. Years ago I did another 318iC with Rigmaster, we chopped the front right at the shock towers and welded a new nose on, I sold the car to a friend and it burned the REAR tires off in less than 5k miles. The wreck had bent the Rear subframe! That car was driven by myself and 3 other friends for 150k more miles and wrecked at least 2 more times…Those iC’s are very stout, yall need to take a look at my race car and see all that is added in the rocker and B pillar area.

Al

#10

Allowing a downbar of roll cage tubing to be welded in, attaching the strut tower to the main cage, would extend the life of the chassis as well, with minimal cost. It’s cheap, retrofittable, and offers no real performance advantage.

People’s cars are wearing out, this would be a simple way to keep them in the series longer. They’re not making any more of these cars.

#11

[quote=“priapism” post=73978]Allowing a downbar of roll cage tubing to be welded in, attaching the strut tower to the main cage, would extend the life of the chassis as well, with minimal cost. It’s cheap, retrofittable, and offers no real performance advantage.

People’s cars are wearing out, this would be a simple way to keep them in the series longer. They’re not making any more of these cars.[/quote]

Not a bad idea. Write up the exact verbage, make a case for justification and submit it to your regional as a rule change request.

#12

would make these cars SCCA illegal for IT also probably for bmwcca as well

#13

You forget, NASA does not give a shit about any other organization!! Of note, if the bars are installed, a sawzall can rectify the illegality of the bar for other organizations.

#14

Ah so, that’s an interesting point. If that’s the case, then that’s a problem.

#15

Last time I looked, roll bar tubes through the firewall put you in BMW Modified class, not a good thing, but then, if you are running in SE30, which is now a specific recognized class, as long as they continue to go by NASA rules, it would not matter.

However, I’m not sure how many folks would have interest in retrofitting to an already built car. What a PITA that would be.

#16

I don’t see how other classes would be an issue if the mod was optional.

#17

[quote=“priapism” post=74102]I don’t see how other classes would be an issue if the mod was optional.[/quote]Good point.

So legal for BMWCCA CR as SpecE30, but not legal for BMWCCA CR KP. That works.

An optional upgrade so not a problem for TX, CO and anywhere else that SpecE30 is trying hard to play well with SCCA.