--- Nandaholz@aol.com wrote:
>
http://home4.highway.ne.jp/okuyama/products/nb6,8-3.jpg
>
> << >--- Eric Moon <info@scca-susq.com> wrote:
> >> Not familiar with NASA rules or classing.
> >> SCCA rules allow for strut braces that
> transverse
> >> the stut mounting points
> >> ONLY. In other words, the bracing may not
> extend
> >> rearward or forward ---
> >> to the firewall, etc....
> >
> >Unless of course this was a factory item, right?
> > >>
>
> How about if the brace was installed but the
> mounting bolts were removed from
> the rear firewall that attach the back of the brace
> for added stiffness? This
> would make it essentially a regular brace with the
> rear angled pieces not
> functional during an autox and merely cosmetic. I
> could then add the bolts
> after the autox for the street and track events
> where the extra stiffness
> would be beneficial. Any thoughts, would this be
> acceptable to the tech
> inspectors.
Now we're getting into a gray area! While this would
be technically in compliance, I don't think it would
fly past the tech inspector. If it were me, I'd just
as soon not even worry about it and just get a tower
brace that doesn't tie into the firewall.
My $.02,
Scot
Do You Yahoo!?
|
