Doors/Sheet Metal Chopdown Rule Updates? (Page 3 of 5)

No, I think our TARP North MR2 is a goner too (the TARP South MR2 Clown Car will be fine, fortunately). The guys up there chopped the rails in front of the frunk firewall and basically everything behind the strut tower mounts on the back. There's no way that car survives the no-cut-down-cars rule. Which, all things considered, is probably poetic justice.

It's not really the same at all. The cage design was agreed such that the strength of each cage meets a specific uniform requirement for driver safety and vehicle ridgidity without transmitting too much force to the driver in a collision or roll-over. The specifications of the NHRA cage were different to the Lemons approved cage in those respects and that's why it was declared unfit for Lemons use. Chopping or not chopping does not result in all cars meeting a uniform requirement, other than they are raced in the same shape they were manufactured, hence my confusion over what the practical benefits of this rule would be.

Any thought that the supposed proposed rule change is to be created so that normal looking cars can compete?  If we went from 2 cut down cars to 4 cut down cars to 20 cut down cars, each one realizing significant weight savings and better resulting speeds and fuel economy, do we enter a new "norm" where you HAVE to cut down your car to compete?  I personally think this has something to do with the rule.  Besides, it's just not that interesting to have 80 car skeletons roaming the track, none of the cars identifiable.  I for one like the rule, even though it negatively impacts a friend and teammate's car {which I am helping him pull the motor from on Saturday}.

I think I'll have to disagree with you on the reason behind the rule, I don't think has anything to do with shedding weight or not.

If you look at the winners gallery there must be something like 80%-90% of  the cars without any chopping. To me, the idea of taking off 800lbs to be competitive is sort of missing the point of Lemons altogether. If you want to have fun and see how outrageous, obscure and hooptie your car can be and still get round the track then that isn't being competitive in the way I took you to mean.

On the other hand, if you do want to be properly competetive then you would be driving something like a miata or MR2 that doesn't need drastic chopping to shed weight. If you want to be competetive in that manner and it requires massive weight shedding to do so then you've picked the wrong car in the first place. It's unrealistic to expect that a Cadillac Behemoth can compete with a miniscule Japanese Rice Burner. If you want to be nimble round the track, it's best to start with a nimble car.

Miata, yes. MR2, not so much. Pretty sure that a MR2 hasn't taken an overall yet. They are fun to drive in this event, but just too underpowered to challenge for overall unless driven by a team of professionals.

But they make up for it by not being as reliable as expected, either.

Yes I believe the rule will read if your car is not a buick that looks like a viking ship you lose.

I like it. Since Buick is big in China, and Toyota is Japanese, we could do some sort of theme about the eternal tensions between the two countries. Or perhaps that is to ephemeral for Lemons and we just revert to monkeys slinging poo. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I thought this was hilarious.  I picture Jay saying something like this.

You in the fishnets and ladies underwear.  We need to keep things a bit more normal around here. If your gonna wear something like that, place make sure it covers the appropriate areas and PLEASE don't forget to shave your back too.

You in the Chicken Suit, please don't smoke in the fueling area, it can lead to cancer.

More seriously, we are talking about building an Maxima and we are talking about weight reduction.

The new rules could affect how we build the car. 

Personally, I don't want to chop a car the point it's unrecognizable.  So keeping the exterior intact, I have to question how much weight you save removing trunk or hood bracing and other structural stuff then reinforcing the area with roll cage tubing.

You've got to remove a lot of .020 gauge sheet metal to get it lighter than the .120 wall tubing your are putting back.

If the rules screw your car, ask for a waiver/grandfather clause.

We race a pair of 1973 240Zs which are pre most crumble zones and stuff.  The 73 has a bit more structure that the 72 and earlier cars and a 75 and later has more structure than a 73 as safety standards went into affect through the 70's.

We reinforced our cars do deal with the variety of cars in Lemons like a Crown Vic.  Most our our reinforcement is in the rear.  Primarily, to protect the gas tank/fuel call. 

Unlike the 280Z on the other end of the CRX/MR2 incident, I don't think either of our cars would have been significantly affected.  Thankfully we have not had to find out but we have had the foresight to consider those possibilities and try to prevent a problem.

On the front end, we both have tube bumpers that are welded to the factory brackets.  So they actually bolt on.  Since our cars are so low, the bumpers are less than knee high.  So while they are beefier than the factor tin foil, they only help so much.  Crunched headlight buckets and rolling the hood are pretty easy.

I've rambled enough.

As an aside, I find it pretty funny that we've been beset lately by a spate of overthinking. This is typically the least of our collective problems. We need m0ar racing.

OTOH, look at Phil's latest post on TTAC about the awesome cars that are competing on Index at Arse-Freeze this weekend. How many of those would be affected by the crush zone revision? The Model T has zero factory crush zone. The Lunar Lander -- who is there to crash into on the moon? The Honda 600 is done if it hits anything even with an intact factory crush zone. There are a lot of shades of grey here...

LOL.  if Dave and Rob couldn't get around you guys, I am toast.  Although i have been working on my PIT move at the local indoor kart track. 

edit:  i was actually thinking specifically of the Enterprise LTD.

actually, it's not just a stretch, it's completely different.  on one hand, you're getting something that has value ("a prepped E30") and saying that it's free.  on the other, you're doing your own work (which costs nothing) to improve the car's performance.  it's no different in that way from removing the car's interior...which also improves performance thorugh weight loss, and which is also free.  what is the "fair market value" of cutting off excess weight?  if cutting off exterior parts is "cheating," then removing interior part has to also be "cheating."

if there are other reasons to limit chopping, that's fine (in a way i'm proud to have been part of a team that pushed the car prep far enough to warrant consideration of a change), but it is in no way "cheaty."