Project Update for February 21, 2013: I've been dreading this update for more than two months, but I have to write it one last time here and then we can move on. I'm only putting this in the thread to explain why we are leaving SCCA competition for 2013, since that has been a part of this build since 2010 (and has been a part of my life since 1987). Once this is posted I am not going to "re-argue" this whole mess again - since I have already done that in other threads/forums. Please don't crap up the thread with more questions about why we are leaving the SCCA, or suggestions how we can get around the new, borked rule re-write that has now banned 80% of the Watts Links on the market for SCCA use. You can send me PMs or emails, but I won't likely get into it further. We've already been over this dozens of times with other folks inside and outside of the SCCA, and have wasted enough time trying to find a work-around. It doesn't exist - there is simply no way for us to race any of our S197s in SCCA Solo for 2013. Their ruling is final and nothing is going to change the SCCA's ways, other than continued membership attrition.
That first half of my thread update is pretty negative, but there's no way to dress it up nicely. Luckily the second half of this thread update is a bit more positive - we cover the current and future status of our 2013 Mustang GT, touch on a new letter we have written to the SEB about moving the S197 to STU class for Street Touring use, introduce some potentially big news for Mustangs and hopefully Vorshlag for 2014, and briefly discuss the next few mods we have in store for our 2011 GT in the coming weeks.
Let's get this first half over with. If you already know this story, feel free to skip to the second half.
SCCA SPAC/SEB Bans Alternate Differential Covers (and most Watts Link Kits) in Solo
As many of you reading this know, Vorshlag was one of Whiteline's first testers for their S197 Watts Link kit. We talked about their products in this build thread, installed and tested their Watts Link in August 2012, and then used it at the 2012 Solo Nationals and all competition events and street driving since. We have had excellent results with this kit and have been selling many of them since it went into production. Rock solid unit. One of the only units on the market that doesn't have metal rod ends, which gives this the Whiteline Watts kit a silent, street friendly function - but it still works extremely well in autocross and track competition with big 315mm R compounds and aero.
So after the 2012 Solo Nationals, someone with some pull in the SCCA piped up online and said "that Watts Link is illegal because it changes the differential cover!". Ludicrous, I said.
The mounting is unrestricted and the most common mounting for any Watts Link propeller is to the differential cover. This is the way most factory units are installed and the vast majority of aftermarket units as well. It is the most logical way to mount the point on the axle that attaches to the lateral links and chassis for the Watts Link.
We didn't hear a single ESP competitor complain about any potential Watts Link illegalities at the 2012 Solo Nationals.
To clear this up before we spent upwards of $50K building our 2013 GT for ESP class and getting a silly protest at a National event in 2013, we asked the Solo Events Board (SEB) for a clarification. Big, big mistake. You see I felt like this was just a formality, because this style of Watts Link mounting is by far the most prevalent and has been in use for decades in SCCA Street Prepared. Logic would prevail, the clarification would be simple, and the obvious answer would remove any doubt about the legality of the Whiteline Watts link and the other seven brands for the S197 (Cortex, Griggs, etc) that also relied on an alternate differential cover for their kits. These units had many years of precedent in ESP class without issue.
But this is the SCCA, and logic often has
nothing to do with their decisions.
This is the same group that argued about removing 0.5 ounce badges from cars,
for two years. So I should probably not have been surprised when a 8+ week discussion took place within the Street Prepared Advisory Committee (SPAC) and then the SEB. And they finally ruled, "you know, we don't think the original rule writers
meant that..." and they changed the rule, banned our preferred Watts Link kits (plus many other brands), and our next S197 ESP project was doomed.
To get a clear sense of the history of this rule and how this re-write went down, let's look at the original Street Prepared "solid axle" extra rule set that we felt clearly showed this and many other a Watts Link kits were legal:
|
Originally Posted by 2013 SCCA Solo Rules
15.I Solid axle suspension allowances:
1. Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage connecting
the axle housing or De Dion to the chassis, which controls
lateral suspension location) is permitted.
2. Traction bars or torque arms may be added or replaced.
3. A panhard rod may be added or replaced.
4. The upper arm(s) may be removed, replaced, or modified and the
upper pickup points on the rear axle housing may be relocated.
5. The lower arms may not be altered, except as permitted under
Section 15.8.C, or relocated.
Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but
may serve no other purpose (e.g., chassis stiffening). This does not
authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe or bodywork to
accommodate the installation.
|
That bit there about
unrestricted mounting for lateral locating devices, to me and many others we have spoken with, meant
unrestricted. You can weld, fabricate, unbolt and do pretty much anything necessary to make the Watts Link fit a solid axle car.
UNRESTRICTED is a pretty damned forgiving term, and that wording has been in place for many years. Since the rule, as written, called out that you
couldn't remove welded on part of the subframe or bodywork, then a
bolt-on differential cover seemed like fair game. Remember - we had unrestricted mounting boundaries. And we had spoken with several competitors in ESP class at Nationals that themselves had alternate diff covers, simply because this rule so clearly allowed it. This has been the working interpretation by competitors for this class for ages. It wasn't like we were trying to
sneak a Corvette in under this solid axle allowance, just use the most common sense, most prevalent mounting method for aftermarket Watts Link kits. Nobody actually running in ESP class has ever said a thing to me about our Watts Link mounting. It has, as far as we can find, NEVER been an issue of protest in this class at any level. And of course, it offers no competitive advantage over other methods of attachment.
Until a certain someone, who sells a
competing Watts Link brand and therefore has a
business reason to block the Whiteline unit, made a public prolongation that "that brand isn't legal!". And this someone is on an SCCA Solo rules advisory committee.
So here was the long awaited, much debated re-write of the rule (linked
here.)
|
Originally Posted by SCCA FasTrack, Feb, 2013
#9767 Watts Link Clarification
There is no allowance to replace the differential cover. Modifications to the original differential cover are permitted, but replacing the entire differential cover would be outside the scope of the current allowance, which is intended to permit any method of attachment, not wholesale replacement of parts to which the attachment is made.
|
Wow, that is some tortured logic. They just redefined what unrestricted means. Somebody call Merriam Webster and tell them their definition is all wrong.
But then, immediately after making this ruling, the SEB/SPAC proposed a "fix", an all new rule proposal to
allow these alternate differential covers and then make these common Watts Link mounting styles legal once again. This was printed in the very same
FasTrack publication:
|
Originally Posted by Feb 2013 FasTrack, Change Proposals
#9961 Differential Allowance
The SPAC and SEB would like member feedback as regards allowing alternate differential covers, either (1) for all cars via adding a new 15.10.CC: “Differential covers and attaching hardware may be replaced.” or (2) only for solid axle cars via adding a new 15.8.I.6: “Differential covers and attaching hardware may be replaced.”
|
That's great, and I agree heartily with this change... but due to the obtuse and excruciatingly slow way the SCCA works
most times, this new rule will take
A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR to undo the damage their clarification has done. That is what I have a big problem with: they chose to do this the SLOW way. These committees could have fixed this in one single technical bulletin clarification, with no year long sentence of "illegality" for eight brands of Watts Links.
continued below