Don:
My advice is to check with the organizations with which you intend on
running. If they don't have a problem with the cage (basically a
semi-tube-frame now) then you're OK. I would have to ask you to cut or
remove the forward sections for Florida Region SCCA Vintage though... As
to the brake question, same applies.
The question of safety is always an issue but, as you have seen, is far
too often used as a disguise for performance improvements. Unlike some
others here in Palm Beach County, I will not try to discern the
individual's intent but will, rather, enforce the rules that apply.
Safety often lies in the hands of the driver.
Good luck with your program - hope to see you on the grid at some point!
*8o)
John A. Rollins, Vintage Race Coordinator
Florida Region, SCCA
Don Marshall wrote:
>
> At 10:11 AM 11/30/00 EST, WSpohn4@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 11/30/00 3:00:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> >nobozos@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >
> >> You forgot to add the part about tying your roll cage to your suspension
> >> pick-up points - for safety, of course...
> >
> >And why do the Jag guys, who already have 4 wheel discs, fit either
> >ventilated discs from later models, or bigger Camaro discs? Safety, of
> course.
>
> I guess this is as good a time as any to ask some questions, since these
> two issues are at the top of my list..
>
> I'm in the process of retrograding a former SCCA TR4A for vintage, and all
> the basic work is done (stock bodywork, detuned and legal engine, stockish
> ignition, etc). What I haven't done yet is cut the cage loose from the
> front frame and replace the aluminum front hubs and ventilated disks with
> stock parts.
>
> I'm a novice driver and am reasonably sure I don't care about winning
> anything.. I'm also old enough that I value my body parts and would like to
> keep them functioning at their current level, such as it is. So my
> interest really is in safety. I know the front bars increase chassis
> stiffness, and that in the hands of a good driver that could be a
> competitive advantage, but I also have video of this very car T-boning
> another car at speed, doing serious damage to the front end but no damage
> to the driver. I don't know if there were no injuries because the cage was
> connected at the front, but it seems reasonable that it's safer the way it
> is than without the bars going to the front.
>
> The other issue is replacing the front aluminum hub and ventilated disk
> with 35 year old British iron, which is what I think originally started
> this discussion. There's been a rash of Triumph rear axle breakage
> recently and I believe there have also been some front hub problems
> reported. My understanding is that the replacement hub I already have on
> the car takes care of that, but that the heat from non-ventilated discs can
> then cause problems for the aluminum hub, hence the combination of hub and
> vented disc. I'm also aware that cooler brakes provide better stopping and
> might allow a driver to go deeper into a corner before braking, but again,
> I really am interested in the safety part of the equation.
>
> I'm willing to cut the cage and replace the brakes if necessary, but before
> I take the time and spend the money to downgrade them, I'd be interested to
> know whether there's anything to this and if I may actually be compromising
> safety in the interest of originality. I'm aware that some groups are more
> liberal in their interpretation of "safety" upgrades than others, and that
> if I decide to keep the bars and brakes I might be limited as to where I
> can race. I'd also hate to downgrade the car and then roll it into a ball
> because something broke that could have been avoided.
>
> Any input is welcome..
> Thanks,
> Don Marshall
|