Group Buy-BSI stayrod for A1 chassis

[nealtovsen@yahoo.com (Neal Tovsen)]

> sorry to seem to be flaming the thing, but it just
> seems like it would do more bad than good (if any
> good at all).

Everyone's points here have some validity, but they're
made with the wrong assumptions.

That piece is designed with ITB/ITC SCCA road racers
and SP-class autocrossers in mind. Their rules are
very strict about engine and frame reinforcement.

1) STOCK motor mounts are required.

2) Strut tower and control arm stress bars are
extremely limited. In general, they cannot be
triangulated.

3) Other forms of chassis reinforcement are illegal.

4) Welding *anything* to the chassis (like a
reinforcing plate on the front mount) is taboo.

5) A single "torque supression rod" is allowed. It
must have a single attachment at each end, and (IIRC)
it must be longitudinal.

Once you see the rules they must meet, this
contraption starts making more sense. It isn't an
ideal solution, but it was never meant to be.

Further, the goal of this thing is primarily to reduce
wheel hop. Allyn didn't carry his explanation of
torque-to-forward-motion quite far enough to make it
clear. The engine's tendency is to want to rotate
around it's crankshaft. Thus, it pulls up on the core
support, pushes down on the rear mount, and pushes
BACK from the top of the block (or transmission, as
the case may be). That's the force the stayrod is
bracing against.

There are definitely much better solutions to the
engine mount and chassis reinfocement problems for
people who only drive on the street, but road racers
must conform to the rules. The IT classes (and SP
autocross) are fairly close to a "stock" class, so
they can't do much. Personally, I'm considering the
stayrod because my autocross class is derived from SP
rules and I have many (not all) of the same
restrictions.

Neal

=====
~Neal

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th!
http://shopping.yahoo.com