MaxcySpeed
rules regarding K-frame replacement in C Prepared
Last Post 13 May 2003 11:02 PM by redimpss5. 11 Replies.
Printer Friendly
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
camaropaulUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
30 Mar 2003 06:48 AM
    Per SCCA National Solo II Rule Book 2001

    Item 15.8 B Suspension Control
    1. Original suspension control arms may be reinforced, modified, or replaced with components of unrestricted origin.
    2. Suspension pick up points on the chassis or structure may be relocated.

    Item 15.1 B Authorized Modifications
    B. Where alternate equipment is authorized, modifications to the car/chassis are permitted to install authorized equipment, provided the modifications serve no other purpose.

    What other perpose would replacing the K-frame have other than relocating control arm
    pick up points.

    Can somebody clear this up for me. By these rules it appears that tube K-frames are legal.
    raven350User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    31 Mar 2003 05:20 AM
    Other purposes for K-Member:

    More room for headers.

    Can run larger than stock oil pan.

    Weight savings.
    vern.23User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    31 Mar 2003 01:41 PM
    Don't forget that some aftermarkett K-members, particularly those for the Mustang, offer revised control arm mounting locations which provide better suspension geometry for improved anti-dive, caster and camber.
    47CPUser is Offline
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2568


    --
    31 Mar 2003 02:05 PM
    The generally accepted interpretation is that replacing the K_frame IS legal, but you will incure the 15.10 "in excess" weight penalty for doing so....

    DaveW
    Norm PetersonUser is Offline
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:373


    --
    31 Mar 2003 04:00 PM
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by camaropaul:
    [b]What other perpose would replacing the K-frame have other than relocating control arm
    pick up points.[/b]
    Such relocation could be made to alter the wheelbase (potentially by enough to revise the front:rear weight distribution by more than enough to matter).

    Ref 15.8.B.6 "The wheelbase of the vehicle shall not be changed or relocated in a fore/aft direction".

    (edited to separate the Rule reference from the rest of the text)

    Norm

    [This message has been edited by Norm Peterson (edited April 02, 2003).]
    SoloneonUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    31 Mar 2003 08:27 PM
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by 47CP:
    [b]The generally accepted interpretation is that replacing the K_frame IS legal, but you will incure the 15.10 "in excess" weight penalty for doing so....

    DaveW

    [/b]


    Huh? 15.10 is Engine and Drivetrain...
    47CPUser is Offline
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2568


    --
    01 Apr 2003 04:56 AM
    Typo....15.11....

    You still can't really adjust the wheelbase though..

    DaveW
    SoloneonUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    03 Apr 2003 04:14 PM
    I would have to disagree on your interpretation of the rules. An alternate subframe should be legal without weight penalty as a means of suspension component relocation. What is the difference between cutting up my stock subframe to relocate pickup points or even convert to double A-Arm versus an off the shelf bolt on unit. I believe the 10% weight penalty applies to full tube frame cars versus a tubular subframe, as long as the floor pan remains intact there should be no weight penalty. Now I interpret a subframe as something like a Mopar K-frame that bolts across the frame rails, locating engine mounts and lower suspension pickup points. I believe something like a Kenny Brown K-frame for a Mustang is 100% legal without weight penalty. Now replacing a Camaro subframe, which is every bit of structure in front of the firewall is a different story. Care to disagree?
    markaUser is Offline
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2257


    --
    09 Apr 2003 01:35 PM
    Howdy,

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Soloneon:
    [b]I would have to disagree on your interpretation of the rules. An alternate subframe should be legal without weight penalty as a means of suspension component relocation. What is the difference between cutting up my stock subframe to relocate pickup points or even convert to double A-Arm versus an off the shelf bolt on unit. I believe the 10% weight penalty applies to full tube frame cars versus a tubular subframe, as long as the floor pan remains intact there should be no weight penalty. Now I interpret a subframe as something like a Mopar K-frame that bolts across the frame rails, locating engine mounts and lower suspension pickup points. I believe something like a Kenny Brown K-frame for a Mustang is 100% legal without weight penalty. Now replacing a Camaro subframe, which is every bit of structure in front of the firewall is a different story. Care to disagree? [/b]


    I'll disagree. Replacing the mustang K-member comes up quite frequently. Its illegal per the section 15 rules, though you typically can run it with the 15.11 "Up to GTCS" 10% penalty.

    The rules quite simply don't allow you to replace components unless specifically authorized. The K-member is not authorized. Further, while you can modify the chassis to relocate suspension pickup points, you can't modify things unrelated to those suspension pickup points. On the Mustang, you can easily modify the existing stock k-member to move suspension points around.

    As to _why_ it should be that way... We've all got opinions. Personally I think its because of the ability to loose weight from the k-member by moving to a tubular piece, but that's just me.

    Btw, note that the standard Griggs & MM tubular k-members also have an illegal change to the wheelbase of the Mustang.

    Mark
    (PAC member, though this is just my personal opinion, not an official ruling. For an official ruling, send email to seb@scca.org)
    47CPUser is Offline
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2568


    --
    09 Apr 2003 02:55 PM
    Yeah, what Mark said SCCAForums Image

    DaveW
    SoloneonUser is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    14 Apr 2003 02:44 PM
    Of course now that the new Fastrack is online the prepared section clarifies that I was wrong in my interpretation. I personally think the weight savings shouldn't be an issue in a class which requires a minimum weight. But I did see an allowance for up to 1" of wheel base change in there. I suppose it could get real hard to regulate the unintended changes from pieces like that, such as moving the motor lower or farther back, etc.
    redimpss5User is Offline
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    13 May 2003 11:02 PM
    i am about to redo all my front componets and the k member was one of the parts i thought of. what i can figure out the best i can, if i do it will throw me into a new class where i cant compete, so i elected not to. i already got dinged for fuel inj. so the weight was not the worry. but if i can figure out if its legal, then i still might change it.
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    Sunoco 88x31 Button Rugged Radio 88
    saferacer
    Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
    Race-Technology CarboTech 88x31 Button
    HoosierTire88x31 Vorshlag 88x31 Button
    UltraRev 88x31 Traqmate 88x31 Button
    Apex Detail Button Hyperfuels 88x31 Button

    Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

    SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

    Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank




    Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner