Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: javajoe79 on April 21, 2014, 02:00:48 PM
-
The book says a 2% maximum body stretch is allowed in the cowl area forward of the firewall. Does this mean 2% of total body length or wheelbase?
I know, I know call and ask the guy in charge of altered class..... spare me the lecture :cheers: I will if I don't get a solid answer here.
-
The wording has been there for quite a few years.
Also note that "burden of proof" lies with the contestant. Most of the % rules are based on WB... if you need that extra inch, I would get it in writing from the chair.
you already know my opinion doesn't count :cheers:
-
It's written "exactly"this way because there were a lot of NHRA pro stock cars being retired. At that time many were Pontiac Grand Ams, Olds Cieras etc. converted front wheel cars and Camaros/Firebirds and the ony difference between them and a " stock " body was additional length at the cowl. The additional wheel base of 2% were allowed too.
Don't write or read too much more into this. NHRA current pro-stockers are so much different today I'm not sure they would qualify....JD
-
I will be calling or emailing an SCTA person later today to be sure of this but we plan to use that 2% because we can as well as lengthen the wheel base by pushing the front wheel forward within the wheel well. The book does not mention any limit to wheelbase.
-
What does 2% figure out to be on your car?
DW
-
depends on if it's 2% of body length or 2% of wheelbase. I just emailed Bobby Sykes and will post his reply to several questions that I had.
-
The rule reads 2% in the cowl. As you mentioned wheelbase is not addressed. This is not Smoky Yunick, where his famous theory was if it is not addressed in the rule book then it is not governed. JD wrote not to read too much into the rules.
DW
-
I am just wondering what the 2% applies to. When you are talking about body stretch it would seem to make sense that the 2% would be 2% of the body, not the wheelbase.
I know how it says this stretch is allowed in the cowl and that is where we would add it. It would be over 2" and I think that it's worth it. We are using a one piece fiberglass nose, that we have been approved to use, and it has extra material on the back end of it.
So considering they allow this 2% I would assume that means the wheelbase can increase to match that 2% in body stretch. Also whether it is 2% of the body or 2% of the wheelbase matters in that it would be a difference of over an inch.
I fired off an email this morning though so I will have official word soon enough.
Thanks for the input DW
-
DW,
One of the things we are trying to figure here is if we can stretch the body by X and then stretch the wheelbase more for stability as we never saw anything in the book about wheelbase. If that is open, then we will push it out some.
-
Rookie chime in time.........
As I read the paragraph in the rule book, there is nothing stated about wheel base as it pertains to "body stretch". I believe that the 2 percent is taken from the body OAL and then applied at the cowl area. As far as altering the wheelbase goes, I don't see anything in either the Modified general calss descriptions or the Altered "sub" class descriptions and since you are allowed to use any frame in your class, a wheelbase modification would be allowed as long as it didn't violate any other part of the rules in your class.
DW, am I on target with this interpretation?
Cheers, Mike
-
Rookie chime in time.........
As I read the paragraph in the rule book, there is nothing stated about wheel base as it pertains to "body stretch". I believe that the 2 percent is taken from the body OAL and then applied at the cowl area. As far as altering the wheelbase goes, I don't see anything in either the Modified general calss descriptions or the Altered "sub" class descriptions and since you are allowed to use any frame in your class, a wheelbase modification would be allowed as long as it didn't violate any other part of the rules in your class.
DW, am I on target with this interpretation?
Cheers, Mike
That is pretty much exactly how I interpret it and how we plan on proceeding. Just want to be sure before proceeding. I am still waiting for an email back for the official word.
-
I believe that the interpretation is acceptable. The modification, as mentioned in an earlier post, was done to follow mid 80s Pro Stock NHRA cars which began showing up on the salt. Later model coupes and sedans do not lend themselves to this mod but, since it is in the rule book the mod is allowed. The wheelbase issue is really a non-issue because the wb is not addressed. Keep in mind that the proof the modification is within specs as defined in the rule book is in the hands of the competitor. Be prepared with documentation that can be verified when in impound.
With all that said, since I have been removed from all board and committee positions I feel that I can no longer answer questions on behalf of the SCTA-BNI. Use section 16 of your rule book when asking technical questions that will need an "official" SCTA-BNI answer.
DW
-
Dan,
Thank you for the 'unofficial' interpretation. Even though you are no longer answering officially, it gives us a little more confidence moving forward that we are on the right path.
We took measurements of the OEM body length and wheel base before cutting it up and will keep those in our log book. I think I even have a factory service manual with that info but will look to see what is there.
-
Emailed a few days ago. Still waiting. I will call next week if I don't hear back.
-
Since the rule book does not spell out the answer I might worry about what to do if the rule changes next year.
I say this because the opening lines for altered in section 5.D.2 all say the body is unaltered in height, width, length, or couture. The body panels must also be mounted in the original relationship.
As Dan pointed out the 2% stretch was added for mid 80's Pro Stock cars. As there may not be any of these running any longer the 2% rule might go away. A lot of work for 2" - 3"
Just food for thought...
-
This 2% rule came about when Roy Fjastad brought a pro stock to Bonneville. It had the 2% stretch. As I recall he got in the 200 MPH club with it.
-
It is no more or less work for us to add the stretch as we had already planned to use a new front frame and fiberglass front end. It will, however, give us a touch more room for the turbo doo-dads and wheelbase.
-
Since the rule book does not spell out the answer I might worry about what to do if the rule changes next year.
I say this because the opening lines for altered in section 5.D.2 all say the body is unaltered in height, width, length, or couture. The body panels must also be mounted in the original relationship.
As Dan pointed out the 2% stretch was added for mid 80's Pro Stock cars. As there may not be any of these running any longer the 2% rule might go away. A lot of work for 2" - 3"
Just food for thought...
Do you know something about next year's rules that we don't? I would think any rule could be changed from year to year, but only with good reason. "Who does this hurt to remain? Who does this help to remain? Is there a specific reason to eliminate this rule?" Those are the questions that I hope are asked and answered with impartiality.
-
Boy, you are new.
-
.....As there may not be any of these running any longer the 2% rule might go away. A lot of work for 2" - 3"
Just food for thought...
Good food, I'd take that course,
Sum
-
.....As there may not be any of these running any longer the 2% rule might go away. A lot of work for 2" - 3"
Just food for thought...
Good food, I'd take that course,
Sum
HEY...we built the 222 Camaro to this rule, complete body off over assembled [tacked togethered ] pro-stock chassis by Alston.
Finished tig welded by certified aircraft welder hired by Pro-chassis. Pro-Chassis wanted welding to be perfect when we were building
for 300 mph. About 100 mph faster than pro-stockers at that time.
Stock body 192.5 inchs + 2%= 196.35 or 3.85 inches.
Why take it out? If you don't want to stretch it, don't.
We also added to the wheelbase. Results 286 mph 1n the 1/4, 294 mph avg, in 1st mile with indicated top speed of 318 mph on parts wash :-D
JL222 :cheers:
-
Since Glen mentioned Roy I'll continue my early answer. Yes it was Roy's Firebird during construction that the rule was changed. He asked me to come down and look at the car. I did not see it WAS changed from stock HE told me it was. At the time it was not legal. He decided to ask for a rule change before the car was run or finished and did use the NHRA allowance in pro stock for his suggestion.
At this time, and as the rules still state, the "body" was not altered in any way; it was a lengthening of the cowl which by definition is in front of the body..... Hey, these were " altered" class cars not production or gas coupes. Guys ( including me) were just taping off our grilles to run in altered when in reality these were true race cars there should be an advantage given to them?
Roy's rule suggestion was put in the book before his car ever ran and has been in ever since. Other converted front wheel GM cars followed from NHRA classes and it has been a positive for our Motorsport. Personally if i was building an altered car and did add the 2% (which is a little over 2") to the cowl, the stock front wheel location would no longer be centered in the wheel we'll and look IMO stupid. The body proper still needs to be stock and as Dan restated don't read that much into the written word in the book. ( Is everybody Smokey?)
Good luck and keep racing..........JD
-
When you are building a frame and using a 1 piece nose that is already approved, it's really no more work then not doing it. I would think that a rule like that would have to allow grandfathering IF it were to go away....
-
I would think the rule is for overall body length including hood and fenders. If front end is not included it could be modified.
the rule book refers to many ''body mods allowed'' to the front end.
We purchased this Pro-stock approved 4'' stretch front end from Harwood fiberglass in 1989 and just replaced it with the exact same piece a couple years ago.
I corrected the body length in the previous post. Stock length 192.5 inches + 2%=196.35 in. or 3.85 in. stretch.
Believe me after all these years we measured with squares and tapes to make sure were not over the limits anywhere
JL222
-
jl, believe me I know how important correct measurements are. When I bought my roadster it was legal but the guy who owned it only ran Bonneville and since I was at the lakes too where others saw it soon the rules we "adjusted" too get rid of the stock grille shell. When I rebuilt the ( non Ford ) roadster the FIRST time in 1983 I had to bring a stock hood to a Board meeting along with the hood I made so they could find me not meeting the rules ( little did they know I had a stock Austin American 1932 hood) also had to prove where the windshield mounted to prove the step pan met the demension rule, and where the wheels were and my inner fenders were in the stock position. In 1986 the board changed the body rules again three of them which made me unable to run again. By 1990 I met the new rules by removing the rear fenders, changing the rear end, and the fuel tank from infront of the grille. There were new measurements for total length and tread width......so your measuring tape in an important tool in the box.......JD
-
The following is the response I received. We are good to go as planned.
Hello Chris,
In regards to your question on the 2% body stretch; The committee agrees you can use the total body length to calculate the stretch. However you can only stretch the cowl area as described in the rule book under section 4.MM. You may also alter the wheelbase a similar amount to keep the wheel / tire in the center of the wheel well.
Hope this and my other answers help in your project. Look forward to meeting you on the Salt.
Best Regards,
Mike LeFevers