Rear Shock Tower Brace Clarification

[IPF Racing]

I'm looking at relocating our fuel cell from the passenger seat area to the rear parcel shelf. However this will cause me to remove some structure between the rear shock towers. When I build the cage around the fuel cell, I'd like to replace the shock tower structure I need to remove with a tube between my two pickup points for the main hoop rear supports. It seems like this directly violates 9.10.2.11 (and we don't have points to spare), but am I covered by 3.2.12? Currently we only have the 2 main roll hoop support tubes so we have 2 tubes we can add to the cage back there. 

 

 

3.2.12. Roll-cages may not have more than four (4) tubes installed behind the main hoop and two (2) of these must include the main-hoop rear-support (backstay) bars without value add.

 

9.10.2.11. A reasonable protective and supportive square and/ or round tubular structures may be installed around any fuel cell PROVIDED that the structure DOES NOT connect-to, or tie-into any suspension point or suspension pick-up point, or add to the general rigidity of the chassis, or provide any performance advantage whatsoever. Fuel cell protective structures may be attached to portions of the main roll-cage. Tech Inspection may assess additional points for any structure(s) that violate this rule.

[mender]

What car are you running?

 

[IPF Racing]

Just now, mender said:

What car are you running?

 

 

Ah, need to update my signature. 1988 Toyota Supra with the back chopped off. 

[mender]

Do your present rear bars come close to the tops of the struts? Any pictures?

[IPF Racing]

Bars are basically at the top of the struts. See pictures below.

[mender]

So what material by the struts are you thinking of removing? The angled sheet metal near the base?

Edited December 13, 2018 by mender

[Snorman]

You can't connect the shock/strut towers directly, but you can connect the two rear main hoop supports for zero points. 

But from looking at that picture, it sure looks like that material you would like to remove provides substantial support for your rear towers. 

S. 

[Black Magic]

Can you take an oem door bar and weld it across the shock towers? 

 

Might be free, given the current outlook on reusing materials. I think the current outlook is fixed vpi does not apply if you make it from reused materials. 

[Snorman]

Just now, Black Magic said:

Can you take an oem door bar and weld it across the shock towers? 

 

Might be free, given the current outlook on reusing materials. I think the current outlook is fixed vpi does not apply if you make it from reused materials. 

[IPF Racing]

6 minutes ago, mender said:

So what material by the struts are you thinking of removing? The angled sheet metal near the base?

Basically I'd cut straight down and make the parcel shelf floor flat so the fuel cell can sit there. 

 

5 minutes ago, Snorman said:

You can't connect the shock/strut towers directly, but you can connect the two rear main hoop supports for zero points. 

But from looking at that picture, it sure looks like that material you would like to remove provides substantial support for your rear towers. 

S. 

Good to know, I was thinking another round tube as close to the spreader plates on the rear supports as possible My thinking was that bracing it that high up would make up for the structure I was removing.

4 minutes ago, Black Magic said:

Can you take an oem door bar and weld it across the shock towers? 

 

Might be free, given the current outlook on reusing materials. I think the current outlook is fixed vpi does not apply if you make it from reused materials. 

If that thing didn't weigh 20+lbs and I hadn't already scrapped it that would be a solid idea. 

[mender]

Just now, Black Magic said:

Can you take an oem door bar and weld it across the shock towers? 

 

Might be free, given the current outlook on reusing materials. I think the current outlook is fixed vpi does not apply if you make it from reused materials. 

I guess I'm not keeping up. I thought repurposing was out, especially if it was used to make a part on the FPV list.

[JDChristianson]

lets just not have rules   

 

[mcoppola]

6 minutes ago, mender said:

I guess I'm not keeping up. I thought repurposing was out, especially if it was used to make a part on the FPV list.

You must have missed that lengthy conversation that began with the sc300 that flipped a portion of its deck lid to make it a spoiler. 

Take a look at the revision log for the 2019 BCCR, the change was made on 11/21/18. Many TAC and BoD members opposed the reversal of the new rule but the repurposed verbiage was removed. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by mcoppola

[mender]

13 minutes ago, IPF Racing said:

Basically I'd cut straight down and make the parcel shelf floor flat so the fuel cell can sit there. 

You can tie the fuel cell structure into the main cage then build your firewall to bridge the gap between the strut towers to seal the cell in. No sheet metal thickness mentioned by the rules so I would go with 16 gauge at least, especially given the exposed location. That plus your two extra bars if done wisely should work.

 

The rule is about adding rigidity. I don't see a problem with restoring the rigidity in that area after making room for the cell.

Edited December 13, 2018 by mender

[Snorman]

7 minutes ago, IPF Racing said:

Good to know, I was thinking another round tube as close to the spreader plates on the rear supports as possible My thinking was that bracing it that high up would make up for the structure I was removing.

You can attach close to the spreader plates, but if you attach directly to the tower,  you'll get points. 

In a way, we knew when we did the downbar attachments in our car like this we'd get points, and yes, we took 10-points for a shock tower brace. 

 

[IPF Racing]

1 minute ago, mender said:

You can tie the fuel cell structure into the main cage then build your firewall to bridge the gap between the strut towers to seal the cell in. No sheet metal thickness mentioned by the rules so I would go with 16 gauge at least, especially given the exposed location. 

 

The rule is about adding rigidity. I don't see a problem with restoring the rigidity in that area after making room for the cell.

 

Sweet, I like this frame of mind. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Snorman said:

You can attach close to the spreader plates, but if you attach directly to the tower,  you'll get points. 

In a way, we knew when we did the downbar attachments in our car like this we'd get points, and yes, we took 10-points for a shock tower brace. 

 

 

This picture helps a lot. Hopefully I can actually fit the tank back there so we can have more time in the pits (currently have to have the driver out of the car). Based on the picture below and our exhaust location, where would everyone put the fuel fill (currently comes out of the passenger side door handle)?

[Andrew D Johnson]

10 minutes ago, mender said:

I guess I'm not keeping up. I thought repurposing was out, especially if it was used to make a part on the FPV list.

 

That's what the TAC group thought too, and that was the written rule for a few weeks. As @mcoppola pointed out, the rule changed on 11/21/18. Maybe @Jer has some insight on what happened. 

[mcoppola]

5 minutes ago, red0 said:

 

That's what the TAC group thought too, and that was the written rule for a few weeks. As @mcoppola pointed out, the rule changed on 11/21/18. Maybe @Jer has some insight on what happened. 

Jer just posted his thoughts on this in the engine relocation thread. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by mcoppola

[Jer]

I'm happy to note what I said here, as well.  Our CEO felt very strongly that we keep in the series the ability to backyard engineer our cars.  There was a long discussion on this, and the Board was split on it.  I actually flip-flopped on the matter and was likely the deciding vote in allowing re-purposing for points parts.  The argument for points when re-engineering parts to point pieces was to make it easier for tech, and also to keep our cars looking like cars and not like junkyard wannabes.  The extreme example is someone cutting up their hood to make a splitter, air dam, etc.  But Mike pointed out that sponsors have not ever worried about how the cars look, that their concern is the number of cars in the series.  And he also pointed out that the further away we move from our roots and the creativity we have always enjoyed, the more we look like other series with really long rule books.  

 

Please remember that the Board is here to support the CEO, guide and counsel, or remove him if we disagree to a strong enough extent.  That is true for almost every Board in the world.  In fact, we have more power than most Boards because we have been given the power to approve or not approve rules changes.  But ultimately the CEO makes calls and we help guide him.  The TAC is another tool to help guide as well, with even less power than the Board but brings an important aspect of technical expertise.  

 

The structure of ours and almost every other organization means that more power still resides with Mike than anyone else.  And that's the way its supposed to be.  I'm not saying attack Mike, and I don't always agree with him.  But I agree on the most important aspects, and I still can't think of a better leader for our organization.  So I backed his play on this issue.  

Edited December 13, 2018 by Jer

[mcoppola]

@Jer I know you've been commended for your input here on the forum, and for your transparency and honesty in telling us where you stand on certain issues, it's much appreciated. The post above is a great explanation of the fact that sometimes the TAC, BoD, and CEO don't always agree on certain subjects. I find it pretty gutsy to go on record in front of the membership, fellow BoD members, as well as our CEO, to state your views, and to explain that at times, the TAC, BoD & CEO do not see eye to eye on some issues. That's why I voted for you. Hope you are re-elected, and continue to shed some some light to the general membership on how some rules come about. Thanks!

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by mcoppola

[theblue]

so what happened?   If I can somehow make a turbo and wing out of repurposed parts on the car, does that mean it's no points now?

[thewheelerZ]

@theblue  @mcoppola  Man, it is seriously hard to keep up.  I follow along with most of the forum, but geez even I cant keep up here.

[mcoppola]

7 minutes ago, thewheelerZ said:

@theblue  @mcoppola  Man, it is seriously hard to keep up.  I follow along with most of the forum, but geez even I cant keep up here.

I was surprised earlier to hear that mender had missed this rule reversal. And Wheeler now I am surprised to hear that this is the first time you've heard of it too. The reversal came about partially due to the forum discussion about the sc300 flipped deck lid at a recent race. As I stated, many of us felt it was a step forward to assess fixed point values to an Item even if it was made from re-purposed materials. There were a lot of complaints that you could no longer use a heater core for an oil cooler or be creative as in flipping a deck lid to create a spoiler. As Jerry said, Mike Chisek, did want not want to take the creativity aspect away from the series due to it being one of its roots. So the rule was overturned on 11/21 and is shown in the BCCR revision log. So yes, it is now allowable to repurpose materials to create parts, even if that part is listed on the FPV list. 

This is one of those things that was never spelled out clearly since the series' origin, and I feel it puts new teams, or teams not 'in the know' at a disadvantage. I still feel there's a need to state this in the BCCR and will continue to push for that, or at least get it posted in the BCCR tech updates section. 

 

[Jer]

1 hour ago, mcoppola said:

@Jer I know you've been commended for your input here on the forum, and for your transparency and honesty in telling us where you stand on certain issues, it's much appreciated. The post above is a great explanation of the fact that sometimes the TAC, BoD, and CEO don't always agree on certain subjects. I find it pretty gutsy to go on record in front of the membership, fellow BoD members, as well as our CEO, to state your views, and to explain that at times, the TAC, BoD & CEO do not see eye to eye on some issues. That's why I voted for you. Hope you are re-elected, and continue to shed some some light to the general membership on how some rules come about. Thanks!

 

Thanks Mike.  I really wanted our members to understand how things happen, too, and why if I understand it.  I think at times even the TAC doesn't know what happened to their recommendations and why it happened.  I think we started down this path with our public meeting in June, discussing the petitions.  We need to continue this.  I don't want a shrouded room where things happen and no one understands it or the thought process that went into it.  

 

Thanks for your positive note.  

[Snorman]

I'll just point out that Danger Racing didn't really "flip" the deck lid. They peeled it up from the bottom to create a neat little spoiler. We talked about doing that with our 300ZX a few years ago since it was a 500 point car. 

And unfortunately for the OP,  this thread has gone completely sideways and probably lost any value relative to his original questions. 

S.