So, JH, will you be building to the new 27" minimum tread rule?
"Front tread width may be narrowed a maximum of 12 in. less than OEM, but may not be less than 36 in. minimum. The entrant is required to provide the OEM front tread dimension." 27" is 9 more that could be legal.
After the tread width rule was implemented I was about 2 seconds away from building my front end using a forward canard to A.C. style wheel pants design. (Very similar to the Plymouth prowler but with covered wheels). If nothing more than to prove a blunt little rule change, aiming to make the class head into a generic direction, would not deter me from building a car could abided by the rules but very much not what the SCTA had in mind for the class and with the intent of the trac rule.
Let’s say I was talked out if it…..for no other reason to abide to the intent and not the possibility of what could be done, even if it was legal and in accordance with the rules.
Unfortunately, I have continued reservations about the rule change. I would like to see the MS class be more competitive to true sports cars but because in part of this rule change I could not see wider tracked sports cars like the Vett (minimum allowable is 51” [15” from 36]) and the Viper (minimum allowable 47” [11” from 36]) be made for MS. Even cars like the slim 911 will be giving up over 6” at 10’ to cars like the Berk, Fiat or the MG. This will IMO make only the cars with the most narrow stock track width desirable.
I would like to have seen a tread width number that ALL cars could run as apposed to “12” from OEM and no more than 36””. This would eliminate having to “provide documentation of OEM dimensions” and would also make the class competitive for cars other than tiny European 2 seaters….thankfully I have chose a Fiat long before this rule was proposed……don’t really have too much to complain about, certainly glad I didn’t opt for a Vett.
No more rants, but surprises to come…..
-JH