Where is it written???

[Jonny Hotnuts]

The SCTA rule updates still says -12<36" for MS front ends.

Is it 27 or 36??

[JackD]

It is 27 inches and I will send you a copy of the board decision.
Ain't a message board grand ?
Jack

[landracing]

Depends on where you are getting the update from.

On Landracing.com main page are the confirmed rule changes right on the front page - As for the MS section you stated upon.

"5.D.4 Modified Sports - /BFMS, /FMS, /BGMS, GMS
Streamlining ahead of and including the cowl, channeling, belly pan and skirts is allowed. Front tread width may be narrowed to a minimum of 27 in. Removal of minor trim and bumpers is allowed as long as the body is not altered in length, width or contour. Spoilers as defined in Section 4.CC.6 are allowed. Windshields may be lowered or removed. Coupe tops may be chopped. "

As of Today December 21st : The rules on the SCTA website are the PRE-BOARD approved changes.. Which means that is what went in front of the board. The actuall approved changes are posted on Landracing.com.

I got a copy of the approved changes Dec 10, 2007 and were promptly posted to Landracing.com.

But I guess when in doubt and I quote from Speedweek, "The SCTA-BNI website is the most accurate and up to date information", I guess you could email someone there and get an "Official" answer, or Dan frequents the boards and is a huge asset to this website, maybe he will comment on the correct rule 

Jon

[JackD]

I suspect that a quote from the SCTA Board discussion will soon be available for all to read here.

"Sometimes a ruling that defines "how high", needs a bit of "why" , so as to explain it, and the subject entrant can arrive at the same conclusion the rulers already have. "

[landracing]

Board meeting information on that rule.

"8.     Dan Warner presented a proposed rewording of the Mod Sports rule about front end tread width recommendations.  He had determined that currently running cars holding records in active competition would be “outlawed” by the propose change.  Specifically the Berkley (Benham built, Keith Turk raced) only has a tread width of 27 inches and the rule change had proposed a minimum of 36 inches or 12 inches less than stock – which ever was greater.  In light of this situation, dan was proposing to make the minimum 27 inches and forget the “less than stock phrase”.  Mike Manghelli motioned and Bob Webb seconded that the words be changed to reflect only the 27 inch minimum, and omit the reference to stock tread width.  The motion passes six in favor and one opposed."

We don't call Dan Warner "Dan the man" for nothing, wait that was "Dan, Dan the beer man"

Jon

[Jonny Hotnuts]

Thanks JD

And for everyones help.

-JH

[jackson]

Thank you Dan!!!  It would have been a ton of work for us to get over 36" without ending up with a big scrub radius.  Recent discussions on this site have scared me about my possible fixes.  As far as the body goes, we are running the stock width in the front, but we never dreamed that a tread width could ever be an issue.  This will allow us to worry about more important things.

[jimmy six]

Jackson. The reason was people were considering putting Al Teague, Flatfire front ends under MS's. Glad it worked for you.

[Jonny Hotnuts]

The reason was people were considering putting Al Teague, Flatfire front ends under MS's

"People" = me.



Again, I am very happy with the 27”updated rule, it’s fair, easy to understand, does not mess with current record holding cars or cars running.

Clearly a good decision.

I had originally presented the idea of inline wheels here to get some feedback, because as the rule for MS front ends was written “streamlining ahead of and including the cowl” means that inline wheels would be legal. After hearing that I should consider something else I got the point that a rule would be amended to prevent inline wheels.

I am grateful that the people responsible were looking out for me. I will say that if I built the car with inlines and then they had an issue would mean that I would have to rebuild the car….again, that would suck.

[JackD]

The real success comes with the publication of your ideas here and with them came a suitable response to something they never thought of.
What would happen if 5 MS entries all showed up that were built to the letter of the rules that featured 0 track width.

[dwarner]

JH,

You can stop patting yourself on the back now. Miller and I had already begun the process to limit front tread before your posting.

DW

[Jonny Hotnuts]

No S*#t DW.

If I was going to "pat myself on the back" it would be because I have giant, flaming nuts. Not because a rule change prevented me from building a narrow front.

I never clamed I was the reason, only that I was affected.

[desotoman]

The change has been made on the SCTA website. It now reflects what was discussed and voted on at the December 2007 SCTA Board meeting. It is now written.

Tom G.

[dwarner]

Quote
The reason was people were considering putting Al Teague, Flatfire front ends under MS's - JD

"People" = me. " - JH

Please forgive me if I misread this to mean that you were the reason for the rule change.

DW

[JackD]

To imply that JH was the only potential is giving him too much credit.
To imagine that the idea occurred to only 2 people just this year is a stretch I think.
Waiting for the rules to change, that have stood for so long before a project is started, seems like a wrong thing to do.

"Thinking ahead really helps one to get all the way through it." (me)

NOTE TO SELF:
Dat otta piss dem off.