Can i run my Jeep GC SRT8 in an autocross event?

[Bill Martin]

Gosh, I'm so intimidated by Jason's invectives, I'll quit now. Sorry to have an opinion. No room here for rational discussion.

Dense and Illiterate Bill
-- purveyor of obese rulebooks.
-- and put properly in his place by the "King of Fastrack!"...all kneel

[Will Kalman]

OK, Jason - define "narrow" and "high" for us. What if there are SUV's, minivans, and 4WD pickups that do not have "narrow" tracks or "high" CGs? You know like the 4WD, SUV Syclone/Typhoon?

It's as confusing and unclear as Bill states. Your ability to fully comprehend one side of a portion of the issue does not make Bill dense. Nor you smart. I also request a bit of civility.

It is defined for you in the book. If you have an SUV, minivan, 4wd truck don't expect to autox it with SCCA, seems very clear. If you can not comprehend the massive list of cars that are classed and allowed to run - which would double in size if they tried to list all of the vehicles not allowed - then you can always refer to the SSF chart.

Or you can try to play dumb like a few others in this thread and twist the rules to suit your needs. LIke the people before, that have shown up and got away with running an excluded vehicle, you will likely get lucky and not do anything to screw up the event for the rest of us. But it only takes one time.

I don't have any needs that need suiting, thank-you-very-much. You are taking a narrow interpretation (all SUVs, minivans, and 4wd trucks are ineligible) and trying to throw it wide over the inconsistencies (there are vehicles in those categories classed for competition). Dumb is not addressing this discussion over those inconsistencies. Dense is not realizing that the only person really pushing a conclusion is you.

[Jason Isley BS RX8]

I don't have any needs that need suiting, thank-you-very-much. You are taking a narrow interpretation (all SUVs, minivans, and 4wd trucks are ineligible) and trying to throw it wide over the inconsistencies (there are vehicles in those categories classed for competition). Dumb is not addressing this discussion over those inconsistencies. Dense is not realizing that the only person really pushing a conclusion is you.

I would have thought based on past experiences you of all people would try to have a clear understanding of the rules. Or perhaps this is where your disdain for the rules comes from.

The entire rule book is full of inconsistencies, did you just figure this out? That does not give you the green light to do what ever you want.

You can try and twist many of the rules for cars and modifications that are excluded in certain classes, or entirely, it does not work here. If you don't like the fact that the Typhoon and Forester are classed, while the other SUVs are not, write a letter. Perhaps you will do a better job than the last two people who asked for the SRT Jeep to get classed. And go back and check Fastrack, this is not a conclusion, on two occasions the SRT Jeep has been listed as ineligible.

You will never see a complete listing of all excluded vehicles, the SEB does not have the manpower to maintain such a list.

[Bill Martin]

Your factual data is on-point and convincing. You have access to information many of us don't. Thanx, really. Now if we could just get you to present your (excellent) case without talking down to us....

Asking too much?

[Jason Isley BS RX8]

Your factual data is on-point and convincing. You have access to information many of us don't. Thanx, really. Now if we could just get you to present your (excellent) case without talking down to us....

Asking too much?

I am not on a board, I don't have any inside scoop that you are not privy to, you have access to the exact same source... It is called Fastrack, comes out every month. It does not go away, it is search-able, it is not rocket science.

I understand that like most people you only want to know the rules that effect you... And that is fine until you try to pass off what you think as fact - a newbie could easily be set up for disappointment by your interpretation of what has already been covered.

[Jonathan Lugod]

: popcorn:

[Bill Martin]

I am not on a board, I don't have any inside scoop that you are not privy to, you have access to the exact same source... It is called Fastrack, comes out every month. It does not go away, it is search-able, it is not rocket science.

I understand that like most people you only want to know the rules that effect you... And that is fine until you try to pass off what you think as fact - a newbie could easily be set up for disappointment by your interpretation of what has already been covered.

Fair enough. But let me ask this. Is it your position (or interpretation) that all SUV's not classed are excluded? What if a SUV passes the 1.3 SSF criteria in Appendix E? Not saying the Cherokee does. But just wondering.

[Giovanni Jaramillo]

I am not on a board, I don't have any inside scoop that you are not privy to, you have access to the exact same source... It is called Fastrack, comes out every month. It does not go away, it is search-able, it is not rocket science.

I understand that like most people you only want to know the rules that effect you... And that is fine until you try to pass off what you think as fact - a newbie could easily be set up for disappointment by your interpretation of what has already been covered.

Fair enough. But let me ask this. Is it your position (or interpretation) that all SUV's not classed are excluded? What if a SUV passes the 1.3 SSF criteria in Appendix E? Not saying the Cherokee does. But just wondering.

I can answer this one Bill. I'd follow the basic principles of the Solo Rulebook. If it does NOT say you can do something to your car then it is not allowed. So apply that to this scenario. If the SUV is not classed, assume it's excluded, then e-mail the SEB for Solo or Howard Duncan and pose the same question to get a definitive answer (either YES or NO).

[Theo O.]

I also request a bit of civility.

Thanks Will!

[Bill Martin]

I can answer this one Bill. I'd follow the basic principles of the Solo Rulebook. If it does NOT say you can do something to your car then it is not allowed. So apply that to this scenario. If the SUV is not classed, assume it's excluded, then e-mail the SEB for Solo or Howard Duncan and pose the same question to get a definitive answer (either YES or NO).

Yeah, that would be the smart way to go. Leave it to the National office. But on the other hand, pg 254, references "This chart is for regional officials and technical inspectors." So that appears to make it a local decision, and gives us the tools with which to make it. It even tells us how to take the measurements.

The only reason I'm pushing this is the guy did the right thing and asked. Seems to me we should have gone to Appendix E to advise him. But then Jason pointed out the SRT8 has already been explicitly considered and rejected. So maybe the guy got the right answer after all.

[Q V]

I can see how a lot of people interpret "all suv's are banned" from reading the 3.1 rule; however, that's still just an interpretation. I can also see how just as many people read that rule and would agree with Bill where it seems to let unclassified but "safe according to Appendix E" cars can be classified locally if not specifically banned.

Trains of Thought:
Group 1 sees "including SUV's, minivans, and 4wd pickups" as all-inclusive (unless otherwise allowed), whereas Group 2 sees "including SUV's, minivans, and 4wd pickups" in the general sense (i.e. "Fry's had a sale on electronics, including laptops, cameras, and car audio, on Black Friday" - doesn't mean every single laptop was on sale, but a laptop is an example of an electronic item, just like an suv is an example of a potentially unsafe car that is too tall and narrow).

Whether on purpose (to allow for regional exceptions, or other) or unintentional (poor rule writing, naturally unclear choice of words, or other), the 3.1 rule is not clear.

1.30? Seriously. Height to average track relationship? How do you calculate this? An RX8 is 52.8" in height with an avg track of 59.1". 59.1/52.8=1.12
C6 Z06? 1.29

Is this for formula cars? New math? Is my calculator broken? I didn't get a response when this first appeared in the book a couple of years ago. Can somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong reading this PLEASE!!!

It's height/track, not track/height, Steve. That being said, a lot of SUV's would fall around 1.11 (like my FJ Cruiser... just sayin').

[Craig Naylor]

That being said, a lot of SUV's would fall around 1.11 (like my FJ Cruiser... just sayin').

FJ Cruiser..... logic would say any vehicle with a shorter height/wheelbase vs. height/track is automatically ruled out! }:)

[Doug Kott]

Lots of gray area here, and decisions that seem a bit arbitrary. What about crossovers, typically car-based platforms but with higher ride height? Probably a lower cg than a typical ute. Nissan Juke? It should incur a penalty for being ugly, but could it compete?

I'm not sure where a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S is classified, but I bet I could traction-roll that Fiat 850 that runs in Historic before I even came close in the Leipzig-mobile.

Interesting discussion here, but all the rude, petty remarks get in the way of meaningful exchange. Pretend you're talking to a person face to face, in person, rather than firing rants from the cloak of your keyboard. (Internet-itis!)

[Steve Ekstrand]

It's height/track, not track/height, Steve. That being said, a lot of SUV's would fall around 1.11 (like my FJ Cruiser... just sayin').

I hear you on the order.... But the Appendix says LESS than 1.30 CANNOT run (even if the chart shows a 1.00 line). You want a track wider than the height, so I switched the order to try to fit a result to the mess in the rulebook. I can't make it work. Again do the math or show me how to do the math properly. Its been three years and I still don't get it. When I contacted the SSC they didn't answer my question they told me that if we have cars running in our region that should be excluded I should say something to the SSS or the DSSS.

[Robert Puertas]

Interesting discussion here, but all the rude, petty remarks get in the way of meaningful exchange. Pretend you're talking to a person face to face, in person, rather than firing rants from the cloak of your keyboard. (Internet-itis!)

Good policy, but that doesn't really help Jason.
He's much rude to everyone all the time!

[Keith Brown]

Steve, the formula for SSF is not a straight calculation width/height. It is derived from a combination of width, height and CG. Reading the chart looks like the line is at 1.00, but the text says it is 1.3 based on vehicles with production like mass distributions (CG) Since there is not an easy way to measure CG on a random truck/suv it falls to a rough measurement, is it wider than it is tall?

[Steve Ekstrand]

Steve, the formula for SSF is not a straight calculation width/height. It is derived from a combination of width, height and CG. Reading the chart looks like the line is at 1.00, but the text says it is 1.3 based on vehicles with production like mass distributions (CG) Since there is not an easy way to measure CG on a random truck/suv it falls to a rough measurement, is it wider than it is tall?

Then what's the point of sticking it in there and telling us to measure and apply it? I'm pretty sure the same guy wrote the Formula Junior Guidelines.

[Q V]

Then what's the point of sticking it in there and telling us to measure and apply it? I'm pretty sure the same guy wrote the Formula Junior Guidelines.

Sorry, I just reread & looked @ the chart closer. Yea, definitely confusing.

That being said, a lot of SUV's would fall around 1.11 (like my FJ Cruiser... just sayin').

FJ Cruiser..... logic would say any vehicle with a shorter height/wheelbase vs. height/track is automatically ruled out! }:)

If everyone used logic, we wouldn't need rule books ;).

Screw logic anyway, this is SCCA. anyone have a Mercedes GL450 I can borrow for "H Stock" (Mercedes NOC)?

[Bill Martin]

If anyone is really that interested, here's a paper on the federal history of rollover standards including the development of the SSF. Interestingly the official SSF is T/2H, where T is the track and H the CG height. So, yes, width is in the numerator and a higher result is a better result. What's in Appendix E uses the same name but is backwards and measured differently anyway. Either the writer really got confused, or they should have called it something else. (Solo Stability Factor, SSF -- no that won't work )

http://www.safetyresearch.net/safety-is ... stability/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron Tsumura]

If anyone is really that interested, here's a paper on the federal history of rollover standards including the development of the SSF. Interestingly the official SSF is T/2H, where T is the track and H the CG height. So, yes, width is in the numerator and a higher result is a better result. What's in Appendix E uses the same name but is backwards and measured differently anyway. Either the writer really got confused, or they should have called it something else. (Solo Stability Factor, SSF -- no that won't work )

http://www.safetyresearch.net/safety-is ... stability/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unless the gov has been requiring auto makers to ID the CG height it would be pretty hard to measure it at tech.. }:)

[Bill Martin]

Absolutely. Changing over to overall height is the only practical way to go. But then you should probably take ownership of it and call it something else. Also the feds never had to deal with the grip of R-compounds. Yet another reason not to use their system.

[John Stimson]

I hear you on the order.... But the Appendix says LESS than 1.30 CANNOT run (even if the chart shows a 1.00 line).

Steve, SSF is not equal to track/height. The minimum for SSF is 1.30. The minimum for (track/height), if SSF is not known, is 1.0. In their explanation, the safety folks say that based on the data, having an SSF of 1.30 means that the height and track are almost equal in most cases. That's why the line with a slope of 1.0 on the height vs. track graph is labeled as "SSF=1.30".

Here is what you do if you want to know if you're allowed to autocross the vehicle.

0) Does it have 4 wheels? If not, you can't.
1) Go to http://www.safercar.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and go into the Five-Star Safety Ratings. Look up your vehicle. Look under the rollover section for the SSF. If it's listed, and the vehicle is stock, then you are either allowed or not allowed based on the SSF.
2) If your car is lowered, widened, or has had the weight distribution changed some other way (LS6 engine swap, for example) then if you know your static mechanics well enough to calculate the new SSF, then you can use that to determine if the vehicle is allowed.
3) If you don't know the SSF, then look up or measure the overall height (highest point on the vehicle) and the track (centerline of wheel to centerline of wheel). If the track is greater or equal, you can run. If the height is greater, you can't.

I would count the Appendix E criteria as overriding the example types in chapter 3, or the example vehicles in Appendix A.

Note that the list in Appendix A is not even close to being a complete list of all cars that are not allowed based on rollover stability.

Cars that are lowered or widened to meet the Appendix E requirements are legal to run.

The Forester probably should not have been classed in Stock. It may be removed as Brian Harmer reviews the SSF and track/height of the cars that are currently classed.

[Will Kalman]

So.... no?

[John Stimson]

So.... no?

Of course not! Those beads hanging from the rear view mirror would never get through tech.

[Michael Palero]

Isley to the Rescue.jpg (129.92 KiB) Viewed 11370 times