2012 Track Width Measurement

[GlennCMC70]

I'll take a stab at this...
The number was set based off of what we thought was the max leagal limit based on the 2011 rules.

So w/ the tire all the way out (on a stock OEM car - more than one car was measured) but with the top facing tread block still under the fender, we took that measurment and set a limit. I can tell you that the limit for 4th gens was set NARROWER than what my 4th gen could be set to under the 2011 version. So it is my understanding that the number is the limit and the limit should not require fender mods in order to get to the limit (except the Fox). Since the limit is set by a hard number, I can't see how anyone would be DQ'ed as a result of the tire not being covered by the fender as a result of crash damage. Fix said damage and the track still has the same limit.

Al's post on the National site is a result of some of the SN-95 guys saying the track limit for them sets the tires outside the fenders. Since this should not be possible if the numbers came from a "legal" car, we have to take a "time-out". So some time is being taken to see if this is true, and how these numbers came to be. It is possible we could revert back to the old rule for a short time until we get this worked out.

I hope I helped. Somehow, I don't think I did.

[jdlingle]

[QUOTE=GlennCMC70;56981]I'll take a stab at this...

Al's post on the National site is a result of some of the SN-95 guys saying the track limit for them sets the tires outside the fenders. Since this should not be possible if the numbers came from a "legal" car, we have to take a "time-out". So some time is being taken to see if this is true, and how these numbers came to be. It is possible we could revert back to the old rule for a short time until we get this worked out.

QUOTE]

I am trying to get a hold of Al reference this. I sent him a text today since I dont know his work schedule for him to call me. I have some rear spacers that will put me .25 (73.25) inches UNDER the max track width and they look like they will be outside of the fenders. I am at 72.5" in the front (73.25 max)and am just inside the fenders there. I would like for Al to come look at my car as it sits and let me know what the verdict is since my car is unmodified in any way in the rear so its as "legal" as it gets. Im not gonna be pleased if I get told to ditch the new spacers for penny on the dollar on eBay or worse yet cut down my rear wheel studs to make it all fit and then be told the same. I like the rule as it is where there is a hard number that is easily enforceable. I even bought spacers with the intent to give myself lots of leeway under the limit, and I held off on those all year since a track width rule was coming. I want to build my car to the limit but I prefer to only buy stuff once. If this changes it just teaches me not to touch anything when the rules come out I guess. I waste enough on this car already without building to a rule that is about to be changed one month after being implemented.

For all to see- The rear axle measurement on my 96 SN-95 car is 70" on the Longacre toe plates with MB Comp 17x9 wheels 275 RA1's. I purchased 45mm (3.5" total combined) to get to my measurements now. I am hoping that by giving exact measurements I can get some clarification on this before I waste any more money. Please let us know what the other cars measurements were. If you nly measured SN99 they have different bodywork than us which should have been taken into account.

Sorry for the rant but after dropping about 400 bucks to get renewed and entered for MSRH the last thing I want to find out is that my spacers are illegal now and I have 2.5 inch more track width in the front than in the rear.

[RichardP]

I hope I helped. Somehow, I don't think I did.

Thanks for the help. Your explanation and interpretation is fine and logical. It just doesn’t exactly match with the words in the rules or jibe with the words Al posted on the national site.

And just to reiterate, the driver’s front of Dan’s car does not “look” damaged. The plastic fender has a nice smooth contour that visually matches the contours of the passenger side. There is no “crash damage” to fix. But it isn’t legal per the old rule and it was before he hit the wall. That, combined with your statement of the possible width of your car is why I was pushing for a track width based off of a number.

Hopefully the words in the rules will get tweaked to be clearer.


Richard P.

[jdlingle]

Got a hold of Al. I am back off of the ledge now. Didnt realize you could machine aluminum spacers if need be. Look like I wont have two new trot line sinkers after all.

[Alien]

I don't think the two rules conflict.

One basically says don't modify the fenders (except rolling) excluding the Fox's.

The other states a Track Width.

[s] Theoretically[/s] *edit* scratch out the theoretically, use the Foxes as an true example as if you hadn't yet modified the fenders, */edit* say your fenders were narrower than the max track width. You could raise the car so the tires now stick out past the fenders. The rule about the fenders covering the tires (in a view from above) is gone. Dan's car is legal if it meets the Track Width rule, regardless of if they stick out past the fender.

[Al Fernandez]

Correct Gary. There is no need to keep the tires within the fenders now, only under the track width limit. If the numbers are right (which we now know they are not for the 94-98 SN95, but that'll be corrected soon) the tires being at the numeric limit will mean they are still under the OE fender. Unless you're in a Fox that is, and for them we have a bodywork modification allowance.

[GlennCMC70]

I will correct one thing I said that is not correct. The 4th gens did not get reduced. Early on that was the case, but at some point the number was changed to reflect the accual width I can get legally on my 4th gen.
Sorry for the error on my part.

[MountainRider2]

Seems like there are two different measurement techniques that muddy the water. The 1st, according to Glenn was that a legal car was measured taking a vertical drop from the fenders to the top of the tread. The second measurement technique calls for measurement 3" off the ground using something similar to the Longacre plates. Are we in violent agreement?