PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 01 Jun 2014 07:07 PM by  ehyman
Front fascia, fender/hood removal in SM
 29 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
marka
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2258


--
25 Mar 2004 09:58 AM
    Howdy,

    Ok, I was looking at the SM rules and had a question. No, I don't compete in the class, this is just a curiosity...

    Section 16.1.I:
    "I. Hoods (engine covers), front fenders, front & rear facias, and side skirts may be modified or replaced. Fenders may be flared as per Street Prepared. Body panels may be attached with removable (e.g. Dzus) fasteners."

    I can't find anything similar to what Prepared has saying that the resultant shape can't confuse the identity of the vehicle, etc....

    So, would it be legal to just remove the hood, front fenders, front & rear facias, and side skirts?

    If that isn't legal, would it be legal to modify the originals by cutting away all the material except for a 1/2" round piece around one of the bolt holes?

    I realize this is quite likely not the intent, but was just curious if its actually illegal. No material is, afterall, quite a bit lighter than any other material... :-)

    Mark
    jtmcinder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    25 Mar 2004 10:30 AM
    I read the rules the same way that you do and also wonder how much must remain to be legal.

    - Jtoby

    55# hood - free ... came with the car
    15# hood - $500
    running without a hood - priceless
    philb
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    25 Mar 2004 01:42 PM
    I'd say this falls under the "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" but the fact they put modified or replaced in there makes it a little more ambiguous. I'd definitely say you can't "remove" them entirely but as for modifying them a liberal amount, I don't see anything against that. I think DG has a hole cut into his hood as a vent and I was going to add one to my WRX. What if the vent hole just happened to ecompass the entire hood, and just the outer frame was left?
    Chris Raglin
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:173


    --
    25 Mar 2004 06:06 PM
    I've thought about this little loophole as well. I actually was considering drilling holes through a 1:24th scale model car hood and fenders and bolting them on my car just to test the bounds of the rule. I imagine that such actions would likely result in something similar to the Grady Woods 'passenger seat must be for full size people, not babies' rule. Air certainly seems like an 'alternate material,' so you might be able to get by without anything, but I kinda doubt it.

    The problem I'd have is that if I removed my stock 18lb hood, I'd just have to add 18 lbs of fuel to make weight anyway, and the fenders are 7lbs each stock - not much to gain there either.

    -Chris
    DG
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:317


    --
    26 Mar 2004 06:41 AM
    Don't forget the rules language specifically warning competitors not to make "unduly tortured interpretations" of the rules.

    DG
    SpyderVenom
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    26 Mar 2004 08:27 AM
    Damn, so my balsa wood and racer tape engine cover would be a "tortured interpretation"?

    (only half joking)
    jtmcinder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    26 Mar 2004 08:53 AM
    OK, SMAC and SEB members, I guess you're going to need to deal with this.

    Obviously, cutting holes in the hood is legal, since I've seen extraction vents in the hoods of SM cars and no-one has batted an eye.

    However, at least one SMAC member has suggested that there's some limit to how big the extraction-vent hole can be, since it's been suggested that a really, really, really big vent would be considered a "tortured interpretation of the rules."

    So how big is too big?

    - Jtoby

    ps. sorry if that final question makes your spam-filter go nuts
    WYSIWYG
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:254


    --
    28 Mar 2004 06:45 PM
    to me a hood = covering the engine compartment, protecting the engine parts from the elements, cutting holes that let raindrops go straight in shouldnt be allowed because that would not be a *hood*
    sideskirts, bumpers, valences have a basic purpose/definition too that should not be lost in translation. just my .02
    SpyderVenom
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    29 Mar 2004 08:33 AM
    Yes, but on my MR2, there are already holes from the factory that allows the rain to come straight through. I need to cut a hole through these vents for my CAI - allowed under the current rules. Also, I know that my engine bay is going to get hotter than hell so I was going to install some fans in the lid - again allowed under the current rules. So when I am completely through, there is going to be very little of the actual engine cover left.
    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    29 Mar 2004 11:51 AM
    Howdy,

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Raglin:
    I've thought about this little loophole as well. I actually was considering drilling holes through a 1:24th scale model car hood and fenders and bolting them on my car just to test the bounds of the rule. I imagine that such actions would likely result in something similar to the Grady Woods 'passenger seat must be for full size people, not babies' rule. Air certainly seems like an 'alternate material,' so you might be able to get by without anything, but I kinda doubt it.

    The problem I'd have is that if I removed my stock 18lb hood, I'd just have to add 18 lbs of fuel to make weight anyway, and the fenders are 7lbs each stock - not much to gain there either.

    -Chris
    I dunno. Weight in the center of car vs. up high in the front of the car?

    This is another of those "If I were rich or just wanted to be a dick" things...

    If I had an SM car, I'd get some wrecked parts and cut out some 1" circles from the fender, hood, and fascias and bolt those onto the car.

    Then I'd enter a tour.

    :-)

    Like I said though, I was just curious if its come up, etc. Dennis's response about unduly tortured interpretations is a valid one, but I'd sooner think that something a bit stronger might be more appropriate.

    The problem is that something like Prepared's "alternate bodywork cannot confuse the vehicle's identity" doesn't work for SM... Where street folks frequently are trying to do exactly that! :-)

    Perhaps "alternate bodywork must provide full coverage. Tires are allowed to extend beyond the bodywork. Functional vents are allowed."

    ?

    Mark
    jtmcinder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    29 Mar 2004 12:17 PM
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by marka:
    Perhaps "alternate bodywork must provide full coverage. Tires are allowed to extend beyond the bodywork. Functional vents are allowed."
    That's not going to work, because "full coverage" and "functional vents" are in direct conflict. Two examples already mentioned are the engine cover on an MR2 and extraction vents in the hood of a turbo car. In both cases, in order for the vents to be functional, they can't provide full coverage.

    That's why I suggested that the SEB and/or SMAC sit down and think about this one.

    - Jtoby
    Chris Raglin
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:173


    --
    29 Mar 2004 01:54 PM
    I think this is one of those cases where it really isn't worth the trouble to try to define it in great detail. Even assuming a rule was passed that required the hood to completely cover the original opening, you can still custom fab an ultra thin carbon hood with no support structure and get it's weight down to something around 5lbs for nearly any car. It wouldn't be very sturdy, but perfectly legal. There really isn't much risk of people gaining a competitive edge by cutting up a stock hood vs building a carbon one. It potentially would be cheaper, and would definately look like ass, but I don't think it would weigh significantly less. So far, everyone I've seen competing nationally in SM has done a great job making sure the cars look good, and still resemble street cars, which I think is important.

    The only type of rule I could envision for hoods would be a requirement that when viewed from the top, the hood must form a continuous covering of the original opening (with possibly a specified allowed amount of open area). This would allow all the venting desired, but would require a scoop or raised cover over the vent, thus preventing excessive venting from being equal to excessive lightening. Fenders are already pretty open in SP rules, but I haven't seen people taking advantage of those allowances to shave a few 10ths of a pound by cutting the fender openings excessively.

    -Chris
    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    30 Mar 2004 06:55 AM
    Howdy,

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Raglin:
    I think this is one of those cases where it really isn't worth the trouble to try to define it in great detail. Even assuming a rule was passed that required the hood to completely cover the original opening, you can still custom fab an ultra thin carbon hood with no support structure and get it's weight down to something around 5lbs for nearly any car. It wouldn't be very sturdy, but perfectly legal. There really isn't much risk of people gaining a competitive edge by cutting up a stock hood vs building a carbon one. It potentially would be cheaper, and would definately look like ass, but I don't think it would weigh significantly less. So far, everyone I've seen competing nationally in SM has done a great job making sure the cars look good, and still resemble street cars, which I think is important.

    The only type of rule I could envision for hoods would be a requirement that when viewed from the top, the hood must form a continuous covering of the original opening (with possibly a specified allowed amount of open area). This would allow all the venting desired, but would require a scoop or raised cover over the vent, thus preventing excessive venting from being equal to excessive lightening. Fenders are already pretty open in SP rules, but I haven't seen people taking advantage of those allowances to shave a few 10ths of a pound by cutting the fender openings excessively.

    -Chris
    To me, there's actually something nice about having a cheap alternative to a flimsy cf hood (and I'd say 5 lbs would be heavy... :-).

    cf bodywork (that I'm familier with) like you'd want is gonna be a couple grand anyway. Unbolting fenders and a hood is free...

    Mark
    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    30 Mar 2004 06:59 AM
    Howdy,

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by jtmcinder:
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by marka:
    Perhaps "alternate bodywork must provide full coverage. Tires are allowed to extend beyond the bodywork. Functional vents are allowed."
    That's not going to work, because "full coverage" and "functional vents" are in direct conflict. Two examples already mentioned are the engine cover on an MR2 and extraction vents in the hood of a turbo car. In both cases, in order for the vents to be functional, they can't provide full coverage.

    That's why I suggested that the SEB and/or SMAC sit down and think about this one.

    - Jtoby What makes you think they're any better at wording than you are?

    Offer up some examples.

    With the above, functional vents and full coverage are not in direct conflict (in my mind). Perhaps we're defining "full coverage" differently?

    Anyway, write up something that's better! :-)

    The whole point of this wording is to give a PC something they can use to address the situation where a competitor shows up without fenders/hood (actually, with a 1" circle around a bolt for each). Right now the rules don't (IMHO) address it at all.

    Mark
    jtmcinder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    30 Mar 2004 11:43 AM
    My wording:

    "Any bolt-on body part that does not contain or house a piece of glass may be modified or replaced, as long as the replacement does not deviate in shape from the original by more than 1" in any direction at any point and does not contain more than 18 square inches of additional venting."

    The first half of this suggestion is what I proposed about four years ago, so that rear-engine cars with bolt-on rear fenders could swap them for lighter pieces. The second part is borrowed from some set of rules I saw while in Canada.

    Thanks for asking.

    - Jtoby
    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    30 Mar 2004 02:08 PM
    Howdy,

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by jtmcinder:
    My wording:

    "Any bolt-on body part that does not contain or house a piece of glass may be modified or replaced, as long as the replacement does not deviate in shape from the original by more than 1" in any direction at any point and does not contain more than 18 square inches of additional venting."

    The first half of this suggestion is what I proposed about four years ago, so that rear-engine cars with bolt-on rear fenders could swap them for lighter pieces. The second part is borrowed from some set of rules I saw while in Canada.

    Thanks for asking.

    - Jtoby
    This is good wording (I could see stealing it for Prepared! :-).... but it also has some problems.

    First, fender flares would be illegal. A 1" flare isn't gonna cut it. Second, alternate fascias would be illegal, something that the target market supposedly loves.

    How would those be addressed? Its safe to say (I think) that they're required by SM...

    Mark
    DG2
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    31 Mar 2004 02:39 AM
    How about this:

    1) The existing rule means exactly what it says. You are being given the freedom - on purpose - to build whatever alternate construction and configuration you want and need.

    2) Any rule specifying degree of deviation from the OEM contour is both unneeded and unwanted. Again, you are being given the freedom to build in any bulges, domes, scoops, vents, louvers, ducts or whatever to get your job done. Want to make use of a Pro Stock snorkel hood? Go for it. Need to cut a big-ass hole to clear your 6-71 blower and bugcatcher? Go to town homie. Got some wild body kit that makes your car look like a rejected prototype for the Batmobile? Knock yourself out.

    3) This rule makes it possible to build parts that are mostly air. That's legal, allowable, and does not need to change.

    4) The harder you push this allowence - especially if you look like you're trying to pull a fast one - the more likely you are to run afoul of the "tortured interpretation" language. A hood that was a 1/4" strip running around the perimeter of the opening would almost certainly get hit with this. A hood that accomplished nearly the same thing with louvers and vents would be fine. Air Is A Material.

    5) When the rule is accomplishing it's purpose, it isn't a loophole. It's Street MODIFIED, dammit. That means you get to modify stuff. When we give you a bunch of freedom, it's there for you to use. If you want to be tied up with rules, Other Classes Beckon.

    DG
    jtmcinder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    31 Mar 2004 05:55 AM
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by marka:
    First, fender flares would be illegal. A 1" flare isn't gonna cut it. Second, alternate fascias would be illegal, something that the target market supposedly loves.

    How would those be addressed? Its safe to say (I think) that they're required by SM...
    No, fender flare would be legal because those are inherited from SP and there is nothing the rules that specifies what order you do your mods in. So you can use my SM rule to mess around with body panels and then use SP's rule to flare the fenders.

    As to fascias ... if you really want to let people go crazy with these, you could add that any fascia can be run, but then you're right back to not being able to stop someone from running a strip of plastic under the bolts. It's up to you to create a wording for this. My only suggestion would be, if you don't want to let people go wild and crazy (as in: remove the 1" deviation allowance), then maybe you should specify that the replacement fascia weigh at least 75% of the original.

    - Jtoby
    jtmcinder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:


    --
    31 Mar 2004 06:03 AM
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by DG2:
    (4) The harder you push this allowence - especially if you look like you're trying to pull a fast one - the more likely you are to run afoul of the "tortured interpretation" language. A hood that was a 1/4" strip running around the perimeter of the opening would almost certainly get hit with this. A hood that accomplished nearly the same thing with louvers and vents would be fine. Air Is A Material.
    You're not paying close enough attention.

    The problem is that many of us do not see a miniature hood as anything close to a "tortured interpretation." It seems legal under a literal interpretation. The rule says that we can replace our hoods. It places no limits on it. So, some of us are thinking about running a hood that has a really really big hole in it. How is that "tortured"?

    Expanding this: I understand why the SEB added the "no tortured interpretations" clause, but this, IMO, was a mistake. What you were really doing when you added this was admit that you haven't really thought out all of the implications of the rules you wrote down, and are reserving the right to arbitrarily declare illegal some things that match the letter of the rules exactly. That's not how a mature set of rules operates.

    Yes, of course, differences in interpretation will occur (see the SP shock-bracket debacle). But that goes without saying ... which means that you don't have to say it in the rules. When you actually put something like "no turtured interpretations" in the rules, you have basically said that the rules - in your own opinion - are not written clearly enough.

    Not acceptable. Fix the rules and take out that clause.

    - Jtoby
    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    31 Mar 2004 06:33 AM
    Howdy,

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by DG2:
    How about this:

    1) The existing rule means exactly what it says. You are being given the freedom - on purpose - to build whatever alternate construction and configuration you want and need.

    2) Any rule specifying degree of deviation from the OEM contour is both unneeded and unwanted. Again, you are being given the freedom to build in any bulges, domes, scoops, vents, louvers, ducts or whatever to get your job done. Want to make use of a Pro Stock snorkel hood? Go for it. Need to cut a big-ass hole to clear your 6-71 blower and bugcatcher? Go to town homie. Got some wild body kit that makes your car look like a rejected prototype for the Batmobile? Knock yourself out.

    3) This rule makes it possible to build parts that are mostly air. That's legal, allowable, and does not need to change.

    4) The harder you push this allowence - especially if you look like you're trying to pull a fast one - the more likely you are to run afoul of the "tortured interpretation" language. A hood that was a 1/4" strip running around the perimeter of the opening would almost certainly get hit with this. A hood that accomplished nearly the same thing with louvers and vents would be fine. Air Is A Material.

    5) When the rule is accomplishing it's purpose, it isn't a loophole. It's Street MODIFIED, dammit. That means you get to modify stuff. When we give you a bunch of freedom, it's there for you to use. If you want to be tied up with rules, Other Classes Beckon.

    DG
    How about this?

    When you say you're giving me a bunch of freedom, then allow me to actually use it like I want to and you apparently require, not like how _you_ want me to.

    Other classes have already beckoned. Like I said at the top, I was asking just because I was curious.

    And the answer was exactly what I figured it would be. Summarized it seems to be "the ruleset is immature. This is technically legal, but if you do it we'll figure out a way to make you illegal."

    You'd think, btw, that someone in the rules writing business would understand that its the nature of competition to push the rules as much as they can stand... and then to write rules that have a specific breaking point. Ignoring (or mostly ignoring) that basic nature of rules for competition will, IMHO, have a detrimental effect over the long term.

    Mark
    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 212 > >>


    Vorshlag 88x31 Button Leroy Engineering Micro Button
    Sunoco 88x31 Button
    Woodhouse Motorsports SPS 88x31 Button
    G-Loc 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