Front stayrod ITCS-11

G

GregM

New member
So I am reading over my GCR after working away on my two conversion SSC cars this weekend and I don't see anywhere where it says I can add a rear stayrod or did I just miss something here ?

What do you think is the best strut brace out there ? I have seen many available online and don't want to order two up and find out there made like crap.

Thanks
 
The one on my current (daily driver) looks pretty stout....it's the same one that howell automotive has for sale, 50$ if I remember right ...
 
Originally posted by GregM@Jan 2 2006, 06:58 PM
I don't see anywhere where it says I can add a rear stayrod...
Click to expand...
Rear stayrods are not listed, therefore not specifically allowed. HOWEVER, note that:

...the cage rules allow the rear leg plates to be attached to the strut tops
...any number of additional tubes are allowed within the cage structure, as long as they do not attach to the car except on the allowed plates.

Your imagination says...? - GA
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 3 2006, 09:28 PM
Rear stayrods are not listed, therefore not specifically allowed. HOWEVER, note that:

...the cage rules allow the rear leg plates to be attached to the strut tops
...any number of additional tubes are allowed within the cage structure, as long as they do not attach to the car except on the allowed plates.

Your imagination says...? - GA
[snapback]69978[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Greg 100%. The rules (D.5.d.5 - ITCS page 11 2005 GCR) say you can add one stayrod in one of the following areas:

A. Between lower suspensions mounting points
B. Between the upper strut towers on MacPherson strut equipped cars
C. Between upper front shock absorber mounts on cars with other forms of suspension

Doesn't say front or rear strut towers so a rear only would be legal. Best solution, as Greg eluded to, is a front strut bar and a 'proper' rear cage design.

AB
 
I think the best bet would be to run as large a front swaybar as you can... no front tower bar... and run as small a swaybar in the back and a upper strut tower bar... which will help the car rotate.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 3 2006, 10:57 PM
I don't agree with Greg 100%.
[snapback]69987[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Andy, you earn one Rules Nerd demerit. Read the fifth word in that section... - GA
 
Originally posted by super8neon@Jan 4 2006, 08:01 AM
I think the best bet would be to run as large a front swaybar as you can... no front tower bar... and run as small a swaybar in the back and a upper strut tower bar... which will help the car rotate.
[snapback]70000[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think this, but after having racing front-wheel-drive cars for over 20 years, I suggest the EXACT OPPOSITE:

- NO front swaybar.
- The biggest damn rear swaybar you can get (see http://www.kakashiracing.com/swaybar.html)
- Either an upper or lower front strut bar, whichever works best on your chassis
- Properly designed cage to stiffen rear suspension

What you are suggesting above will - without a doubt in my mind - give you a car that "feels" like it turns in nice, but doens't really, and understeers like a bulldozer with a plow blade attached. And you will absolutely suck on the track. - GA
 
Ditto on Greg's setup advice. In general larger anti roll bars reduce total grip at that end of the car. In a FWD setup why in the world would you want to take grip away from the front end which typically plows like a dump truck? As for the strut bar, the only legal way to stiffen the front is a strut bar so use that option and let the cage to stiffen the rear. Also, the rear of the neon is mostly along from the ride with little force being put into the chassis keeping the front end geometry stable is the tough part.
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 4 2006, 08:35 AM
Andy, you earn one Rules Nerd demerit. Read the fifth word in that section... - GA
[snapback]70006[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Damn!!! The one (1) thing must have drawn my eyes past it. Stuuuupid.

Now you are gonna make me argue that sphericals AREN'T actually bushings in order to get my point back...

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 4 2006, 09:20 AM
...you are gonna make me argue that sphericals AREN'T actually bushings in order to get my point back...
[snapback]70013[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

:023:
 
Originally posted by super8neon@Jan 4 2006, 02:17 PM
I knew I was going to get most people to go against me... I run what works for me.
[snapback]70011[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
You can come race me anytime, because I know with a set up like that you won't win :bash_1_:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top