Strut Tower Bar
- Thread starter tdw6974
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Any strut brace (or "stayrod" as the good book calls it) may only attach (key word) to the stuts, by my interpretation of the rule, as the GCR states "between the top of the strut towers"..
At the ARRCs, I saw some large plates welded to the strut tops, wrapping around and down the sides of the towers, that the strut braces were then bolted to.
There is no provision that I am aware of that limits that attachment type, or size of the stayrod attachment hardware, but item 8 does go on to disallow and reinforcement of suspension pickup and mounting points as a blanket statement. Perhaps I am imposing my idea of the rule and perhaps it's (in my mind) intent, but I was surprised to see such large mounting plates reinforcing the towers at those locations.
Wish I had snapped a picture.
At the ARRCs, I saw some large plates welded to the strut tops, wrapping around and down the sides of the towers, that the strut braces were then bolted to.
There is no provision that I am aware of that limits that attachment type, or size of the stayrod attachment hardware, but item 8 does go on to disallow and reinforcement of suspension pickup and mounting points as a blanket statement. Perhaps I am imposing my idea of the rule and perhaps it's (in my mind) intent, but I was surprised to see such large mounting plates reinforcing the towers at those locations.
Wish I had snapped a picture.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Thats going to fall, I think, in the same pool as roll cages that have interferance fits with the interiors. As long as it isn't attached, it's fine.
If it is attached, that is to say that if it's other attachments were removed it would remain fastened to the firewall, then it is not legal.
If it is attached, that is to say that if it's other attachments were removed it would remain fastened to the firewall, then it is not legal.
Bill Miller
New member
Jake,
That's the old 'permitted mods may not perform prohibited functions' rule.
zracre
New member
so if someone made a beefy plate with roll bar material bolted to it at the firewall and had it not directly connect it to the strut (.001" clearance at all five points of a square plate attached to the strut tower) it is not connected unless there is chassis deflection....is it allowed? <_<
lateapex911
Super Moderator
No, the "trick way" IMHO, LOL...is to make the stayrod a triangular affair..with the hypotenuse (sp??) running between the towers and the legs pointing to the firewall, where they have a stiffening plate welded to them, which also mates to, but does not attach to, the firewall.
And there are other ways to do it, which I considered, and would work well on my car, but I think Bill is right, it falls on the wrong side of the "permitted functions" fence.
And there are other ways to do it, which I considered, and would work well on my car, but I think Bill is right, it falls on the wrong side of the "permitted functions" fence.
Guys, read the friken rule. SHALL we insert the word "between" in the GCR Glossary ? The friken rule don't say the stayrod may go from here to there to here & back again.
This should get something going.
ps: Maybe some of you can't reach minimum weight because you out read the rules. Your three point stayrod support will weigh maybe three times as much as a legal stayrod.
This should get something going.
ps: Maybe some of you can't reach minimum weight because you out read the rules. Your three point stayrod support will weigh maybe three times as much as a legal stayrod.
There's a possibility that it could be made legal if the stayrods/strut brace were gusseted completely across the top of the engine in such a fashion as to seal access to the engine without it's removal. Of course, it would weigh in the vicinity of 300 lbs. I mean, isn't that what those guys with the Spec Miatas did with their kill switches? Whoops, my bad, those were made illegal! Well, at the right time, with the right tech inspector with a liquor or drug habit...no, I doubt that even that would work. 
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Nov 30 2005, 11:25 AM
Guys, read the friken rule. SHALL we insert the word "between" in the GCR Glossary ? The friken rule don't say the stayrod may go from here to there to here & back again.
This should get something going.
ps: Maybe some of you can't reach minimum weight because you out read the rules. Your three point stayrod support will weigh maybe three times as much as a legal stayrod.
[snapback]67041[/snapback]
Remember, a famous IT.com philosopher once said. "If it says you can do it, you bloody well can"....
The rule does not limit they type, the size, the geometry, the design, or the material of the stayrod. So, if the strut top brace goes from one strut to the other, and attaches only to those points, I see nowhere where the rule restricts you from a carbon or aluminum structure, in whatever shape makes you happy.
Happy fabbing!
Jake, my point is happy fabbing (bar or rod/glossary) as long as per the rule the stayrod is BETWEEN the struts which are opposite each other because that's what the rule bloody well says you can DO. Of course one needs to use the glossary for the word stayrod. 
& the friken rule nor the IT.com philosopher say the stayrod CAN touch the firewall because the firewall ain't BETWEEN the struts.
Happy Winter
ps: Anyone have any knowledge about the for sale 1996 blue Spec Miata #72 in the last SportsCar ?
Of course one needs to use the glossary for the word stayrod. & the friken rule nor the IT.com philosopher say the stayrod CAN touch the firewall because the firewall ain't BETWEEN the struts.Happy Winter
ps: Anyone have any knowledge about the for sale 1996 blue Spec Miata #72 in the last SportsCar ?
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 1 2005, 09:12 AM
Jake, my point is happy fabbing (bar or rod/glossary) as long as per the rule the stayrod is BETWEEN the struts which are opposite each other because that's what the rule bloody well says you can DO.
[snapback]67113[/snapback]
I'd argue what matters is the attachment points. I think one could also argue that the middle of the firewall is indeed between the strut towers. A bit of a stretch perhaps, and I'd certainly argue that touching the firewall is counter to the intent. But there is no limitation regarding touching the firewall or the stayrod having to be the shortest distance between two points.
That said, IMHO touching the firewall is worthless and the extra material to do so is a waste of material and unneeded extra weight (and at a height that is also a disadvantage). Go ahead and build a XXXL stayrod that weights 20 lbs. Knock yourself out.
***Go ahead and build a XXXL stayrod that weights 20 lbs. Knock yourself out.***
George, being that you quoted me in your above post I presume your response is towards me. Do you think a guy (me) who has a legal ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 that can scale under 2380 pounds with a 200 pound driver would build worthless stuff like a couple of the suggested stayrods ?
ps: From my original post on this subject. "This should get something going. "
George, being that you quoted me in your above post I presume your response is towards me. Do you think a guy (me) who has a legal ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 that can scale under 2380 pounds with a 200 pound driver would build worthless stuff like a couple of the suggested stayrods ?
ps: From my original post on this subject. "This should get something going.
"Originally posted by ddewhurst@Dec 1 2005, 12:26 PM
***Go ahead and build a XXXL stayrod that weights 20 lbs. Knock yourself out.***
George, being that you quoted me in your above post I presume your response is towards me. Do you think a guy (me) who has a legal ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 that can scale under 2380 pounds with a 200 pound driver would build worthless stuff like a couple of the suggested stayrods ?
ps: From my original post on this subject. "This should get something going.
[snapback]67130[/snapback]
Hi David. The first line above that you're quoting was NOT directed towards you. Sorry if it seemed that way. It was rhetorical in nature. I'd be shocked if you did something like that.
My post before was basically meant to say that I think a good argument could be made that it could be done legally, but why? It would be a net step backwards as I getting the feeling you quite agree.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I love playing the devils advocate.....
Ok, so it might be technically legal, but the cost to benefit ratio is suspect.
So.....what if, the cross car roll cage tube happened to run by the firewall on the inside kinda near where the aluminum stayrod structure runs by it?
Ok, so it might be technically legal, but the cost to benefit ratio is suspect.
So.....what if, the cross car roll cage tube happened to run by the firewall on the inside kinda near where the aluminum stayrod structure runs by it?
If I was playing with the devils advocate (or George) I would weld a small flat plate to the cross tube between the cross tube & the firewall with a couple dowels pressed in the plate (don't want to weld the pins or dowels because thE weld would be to heavy) & sticking through a couple OEM holes in the firewall. Then I would weld a plate with matching dowel holes (honeymoon fit) to the stayrod which finds it's way to the firewall.
Come on Trump
I would weld a small flat plate to the cross tube between the cross tube & the firewall with a couple dowels pressed in the plate (don't want to weld the pins or dowels because thE weld would be to heavy) & sticking through a couple OEM holes in the firewall. Then I would weld a plate with matching dowel holes (honeymoon fit) to the stayrod which finds it's way to the firewall.Come on Trump