Notices
Motor Sports If you like rallying, road racing, autoxing, or track events, then this is the spot for you.

Street Modified minimum weight

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 28, 2012 | 08:31 PM
  #1  
AreSTG's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
From: PA/NC
Street Modified minimum weight

for 2013 i'm going to try and actually do a season of autox rather than my random fun runs. So, obviously i'm digging into the rules. Car had lots of changes this year, specifically a 2.4 build.

Checking my minimum weight, I calculate a minimum weight of 2934lbs w/o driver. 2380cc motor, 285 tires, and 1.4L added displacement for having a turbo. My tires are 1 size wide to get the 200lb break on "skinny" tires.

I'm simply asking, am I smoking crack getting this weight or am I actually going to have to add ballast for this rule? If so, why the F do they make us be so damn heavy?
Reply
Old Nov 29, 2012 | 07:56 AM
  #2  
RJones's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 14
From: CA
I have a 2.3L and my min weigh is 2910lb. You should be at 2940lb (assuming you have a 2.4L). That's very easy to get to. I'm sitting at about 2950 right now and I'm not even built to the letter of the rules. You could always get down below minimum and then use ballast to better the weight distribution.
Reply
Old Nov 29, 2012 | 08:46 AM
  #3  
AreSTG's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
From: PA/NC
Originally Posted by RJones
I have a 2.3L and my min weigh is 2910lb. You should be at 2940lb (assuming you have a 2.4L). That's very easy to get to. I'm sitting at about 2950 right now and I'm not even built to the letter of the rules. You could always get down below minimum and then use ballast to better the weight distribution.
gotcha. I think you are saying I'm not nuts. As far as the 2.4L thing, I'm getting as technical as possible with the rule, and using my engine displacement of 2.38L and not 2.4L which is rounded up.

Maybe I can make a ballast that mounts in the spare tire spot. Seems like a good location to me...
Reply
Old Nov 30, 2012 | 01:31 PM
  #4  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
2940 is pretty easy to get down to. I'd either drop to a 275 and and lose 200 pounds or try to shoe horn some 315s in there. 10mm doesn't seem worth 200 pounds to me.
Reply
Old Dec 1, 2012 | 10:10 PM
  #5  
griceiv's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 71
From: LA, CA
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr
2940 is pretty easy to get down to. I'd either drop to a 275 and and lose 200 pounds or try to shoe horn some 315s in there. 10mm doesn't seem worth 200 pounds to me.
agreed. we weigh less than that in ASP.
Reply
Old Dec 2, 2012 | 08:29 PM
  #6  
Dallas J's Avatar
EvoM Guru
Veteran: Army
Photogenic
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 811
From: Portland, Or
2620 might be pretty tough but running 275s, 2.4l, and 2710 sounds good in my book.
Reply
Old Dec 2, 2012 | 11:56 PM
  #7  
AreSTG's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
From: PA/NC
Originally Posted by Dallas J
2620 might be pretty tough but running 275s, 2.4l, and 2710 sounds good in my book.
i think that may turn into the plan. That is, once I've killed the 285's I have right now, which may be a "whole" season. Cramming 315's sounds really difficult, and surely will require new wheels, and the 275's are actually more suited for my current wheels. The 275 is taller, but I'm considering a shorter final drive so that may even things out.

Guess I'll see what my final weight comes to when I'm done with winter mods and go from there, but i have no doubt it'll be below the high weight
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2012 | 09:03 AM
  #8  
Dallas J's Avatar
EvoM Guru
Veteran: Army
Photogenic
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 811
From: Portland, Or
The difference of the 24.9" tire and 25.5" at 7500rpms in 2nd is only 1.5mph. Bigger issue is clearance on the front when steering.
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2012 | 10:07 PM
  #9  
doc29's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: kc mo
what needs to be done to clear a 315...
Reply
Old Dec 3, 2012 | 11:07 PM
  #10  
griceiv's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 71
From: LA, CA
Originally Posted by Dallas J
The difference of the 24.9" tire and 25.5" at 7500rpms in 2nd is only 1.5mph. Bigger issue is clearance on the front when steering.
yeah but the extra height isn't an issue when you can pound the fender seam flat.
Reply
Old Dec 4, 2012 | 08:05 AM
  #11  
Dallas J's Avatar
EvoM Guru
Veteran: Army
Photogenic
Liked
Community Favorite
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 811
From: Portland, Or
Originally Posted by griceiv
yeah but the extra height isn't an issue when you can pound the fender seam flat.
Agreed, also more clearance once fender liners are out of the way too.
Reply
Old Dec 4, 2012 | 07:50 PM
  #12  
psushoe's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 495
Likes: 8
From: DE
Except you can't necessarily pound the fender seam flat in SM... The SM rules say you can do minor clearances to fit allowed modifications, except when specifically not allowed in the rules. The SP rules specifically say that no modifications inboard of the hub are allowed to the fender well. I've interpreted that to say no pounding of the seam.

That being said, you don't need to flatten it to make 315's fit. They will rub it at full lock, though.
Reply
Old Dec 4, 2012 | 10:26 PM
  #13  
03whitegsr's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,001
Likes: 17
From: Utah
Originally Posted by SCCA 2012 Rule Book
16.1.P. Any minor modification, intended to allow or facilitate any allowed modification, is permitted as long as it does not provide any intrinsic performance benefit in and of itself, does not provide a weight reduction of more than 1 lb, and is not explicitly prohibited elsewhere within these rules.

This rule is intended to allow minor notching, bending, clearancing, grinding; the drilling of holes; affixing, relocating, or strengthening of brackets; removal of small parts, and similar operations performed in order to facilitate the installation of allowed parts or modifications. Minor strengthening, without relocation, of original chassis/suspension pickup points is allowed. Examples include welding washers restricting control arm mounting bolt movement, local reinforcement of control arm chassis mounts, etc. Competitors are strongly cautioned to make the minimum amount of modification required to affix a given part, and to not make unduly tortured interpretations of this rule. Modifications to the firewall in order to allow for increased engine setback, and any modification that changes the location of a suspension pickup point, are explicitly forbidden. Plastic under-trays and covers below the vehicle may be removed or modified as necessary to facilitate other compliant modifications, but not added or enlarged.
To me, bending the tab easily falls into this category as the larger wheel and tire is an allowed modification and bending that tab has no other intrinsic benefit beyond allowing the larger tire and it is a minor modification.
Reply
Old Dec 5, 2012 | 04:21 AM
  #14  
griceiv's Avatar
Evolved Member
15 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 71
From: LA, CA
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr
To me, bending the tab easily falls into this category as the larger wheel and tire is an allowed modification and bending that tab has no other intrinsic benefit beyond allowing the larger tire and it is a minor modification.
+1
you absolutely can pound the body seam flat in SM. you could even cut it off if you'd rather not bend it, assuming you don't go crazy and cut off a >1lb chuck of chassis or turn it into a mini tub. I think 16.1.B makes the issue pretty clear.

Originally Posted by scca rules 16.1.b
Competitors may pick and choose between all Stock, Street Touring,
Street Prepared, and Street Modified category allowances when preparing
an SM car. Apparent conflicts between inherited rule sets from
16.1.A shall not prohibit any specific inherited allowance. Allowances
inherited from 16.1.A may not incorporate SM-specific allowances.
Foreign spec parts may not be used to substitute for parts which are
required to remain stock.
basically no SM rule specifically prohibits bending body seams so it's allowed even though it's restricted in the SP rules and/or just because you *may* flare fenders per the SP rules does not mean every fender flare *must* be flared per the SP rules.

Last edited by griceiv; Dec 5, 2012 at 04:28 AM.
Reply
Old Dec 5, 2012 | 04:59 AM
  #15  
psushoe's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 495
Likes: 8
From: DE
Ok...but you still don't need to do it to make 315s work, so I erred on the conservative side for this year. Also, based on conversation with a few other SM competitors at the Toledo Pro this year we were thinking it was not allowed. I'd hate to have an issue over it.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:32 PM.