• Forum membership has its advantages....

CODE Class 950

ace_photo

GET SOME
Both SCORE and SNORE still have the rule that states one single tube across the shock towers.
And what's the point of that other than to make it a pain in the ass to service?
 

tapeworm

Well-Known Member
And what's the point of that other than to make it a pain in the ass to service?
I don’t think it makes it any harder to service on a tube frame car. Full bodied sedan I could see, but I don’t think it makes anything harder on a buggy. The only reason I can see this being an issue is the IRS allowing the car to be driven harder, thus resulting in people blowing apart front ends. I’d rather have the front end be the weak link than the transmission though. Parts and labor are a lot cheaper to replace beams, arms, and ball joints than transmission parts.

Maybe that rule should be removed and any beam bracing be allowed. I don’t think that would be a performance advantage over current cars.
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
There are so many loopholes in the front end bracing rules, and Lothringer perfected all of them in his builds. It made the rule impotent. Besides that, if done correctly, the single tube does just about all you need anyway.
 

y2kbaja

Well-Known Member
Trying to research. What does it take to convert a swing axle trans to IRS? After seeing what makes a swing axle go I'm collecting parts to convert my 9 to IRS.
 

QurtysLyn

Well-Known Member
Trying to research. What does it take to convert a swing axle trans to IRS? After seeing what makes a swing axle go I'm collecting parts to convert my 9 to IRS.
Add the arm pivots to the torsion housing, swap spring plates, Arms, CVs, Axles, Side Covers, and the Diff, if I remember correctly.
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
No need to convert a swing axle to IRS, just get an IRS trans. Stock used are cheap and you are gonna have to build it out anyway.
 

y2kbaja

Well-Known Member
I have a pile of stock swingers in unknown condition.
 

ACME

Well-Known Member
There are so many loopholes in the front end bracing rules, and Lothringer perfected all of them in his builds. It made the rule impotent. Besides that, if done correctly, the single tube does just about all you need anyway.
Kent did perfect the cross tube IMHO, but it was all legal and Savage-SCORE & HDRA actually signed off on it at post tech; and all of the other orgs allowed it. To my knowledge all of the cars Kent built or repaired, from the Baja 9'r to the OG Johnny B SS car, through Silcocks (which I believe was the last 9'r he built): Were all 1 continuous tube across. He just split the ends, pounded them flat and welded them over the shock bolts. The chassis tied into it but they never broke the continuous single tube across and their was no mounting rule for the beam.

I was there, when 1 car had 1/3 of the beam sectioned in and I ground out the welds on the tube around the shock bolt so it was not cut & illegal.

When we raced Class 11 they did not allow a tube across them or additional material to the shock towers. We actually had a tube from the chassis out to the shock tower with a plate to keep it solid but no additional material added to the beam or tower. Savage looked at it when he did our SCORE inspection as I had questioned allowing aftermarket steering shafts as well as a the beam rules. As a few new cars had been built with them despite the rules at that time, and one we saw in Baja a few weeks prior was not...

Lots of interesting ideas over the rules and per the rules, most were technically illegal and I believe a few have blessed by various orgs tech officials. The only ones that really seemed to ever care about enforcing C-9 rules were SNORE and MORE. SCORE never really even post tech'd the cars after the car counts fell off and even prior to that, it seemed less vigorous than some of the other post tech's I attended. In some cases blatant infractions were overlooked based on who it was and what seemed to be apathy as it was a smaller, class that no one cared about.

Which is why I find these new rules interesting. It seems to play right into the special interest guys hands as other than a few guys that will run to get a trophy, IMHO you won't see a major class 9 competitor shift to SCORE. Too many budget minded racers that aren't interested in Mexico or the logistics and based on that: The few that petitioned for a change and may show, got heard. Ancient History but: Jimmy T had Record agreed to a BIG 9 race during their Ens-SF event and even with a huge purse and on the heels of a Big 9 Race that had 40-50 legal cars that didn't need a change to race competitively; no one wanted to go. But hey, now everyone will go because of the new rules?!?!?

Rules have always been enforced differently across all the promoters and sadly the limited VW based classes have suffered from a lack of attention by most. That has fostered a lot of "interpretation" and allowed certain people to take advantage or bend & change the rules in their favor.

If it was all about car count and drawing new racers into SCORE; why not go after the 1400/1450 classes? Lot's more active fish & budgets racing in that pond...
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
Kent took a lot of liberties with his limit strap mounts and beefing the hook rod mounting area on the beam, but, as Savage allowed because he wrote the chitty rule book, it flew. Personally, I don't care how much you gusset the beam. I built my front end with split tube ends that covered the upper shock mount before Kent did the Baja. It seemed logical. I did NOT box the upper shock mount with multiple gussets to attach a non-working limit strap to to beef up the shock mount. I also added a single plate to the outer side of the hook rod stop, but it did not go any farther than the bottom and top of the torsion tube on either side. It was one of the reasons I think the gusset rule really shouldn't matter. Some of the Sidewinders had more beefing metal on the beams than what cam on the beams originally it seemed. I would not say the gussets on the beam of the car above meet the 'intent' of the rule.
 

ace_photo

GET SOME
Kent did perfect the cross tube IMHO, but it was all legal and Savage-SCORE & HDRA actually signed off on it at post tech; and all of the other orgs allowed it. To my knowledge all of the cars Kent built or repaired, from the Baja 9'r to the OG Johnny B SS car, through Silcocks (which I believe was the last 9'r he built): Were all 1 continuous tube across. He just split the ends, pounded them flat and welded them over the shock bolts. The chassis tied into it but they never broke the continuous single tube across and their was no mounting rule for the beam.

I was there, when 1 car had 1/3 of the beam sectioned in and I ground out the welds on the tube around the shock bolt so it was not cut & illegal.

When we raced Class 11 they did not allow a tube across them or additional material to the shock towers. We actually had a tube from the chassis out to the shock tower with a plate to keep it solid but no additional material added to the beam or tower. Savage looked at it when he did our SCORE inspection as I had questioned allowing aftermarket steering shafts as well as a the beam rules. As a few new cars had been built with them despite the rules at that time, and one we saw in Baja a few weeks prior was not...

Lots of interesting ideas over the rules and per the rules, most were technically illegal and I believe a few have blessed by various orgs tech officials. The only ones that really seemed to ever care about enforcing C-9 rules were SNORE and MORE. SCORE never really even post tech'd the cars after the car counts fell off and even prior to that, it seemed less vigorous than some of the other post tech's I attended. In some cases blatant infractions were overlooked based on who it was and what seemed to be apathy as it was a smaller, class that no one cared about.

Which is why I find these new rules interesting. It seems to play right into the special interest guys hands as other than a few guys that will run to get a trophy, IMHO you won't see a major class 9 competitor shift to SCORE. Too many budget minded racers that aren't interested in Mexico or the logistics and based on that: The few that petitioned for a change and may show, got heard. Ancient History but: Jimmy T had Record agreed to a BIG 9 race during their Ens-SF event and even with a huge purse and on the heels of a Big 9 Race that had 40-50 legal cars that didn't need a change to race competitively; no one wanted to go. But hey, now everyone will go because of the new rules?!?!?

Rules have always been enforced differently across all the promoters and sadly the limited VW based classes have suffered from a lack of attention by most. That has fostered a lot of "interpretation" and allowed certain people to take advantage or bend & change the rules in their favor.

If it was all about car count and drawing new racers into SCORE; why not go after the 1400/1450 classes? Lot's more active fish & budgets racing in that pond...
No one petitioned SCORE. Jose G is from Mex and see's the changes CODE made, the new cars being built. Why not add the change if SCORE hasn't seen a 9 entry in years? Nothing to lose there.
 

Bro_Gill

Well-Known Member
Ok, you tell me, we used to have 40+ cars at EVERY Snore and La Rana race. Why aren't there even 25 cars at every Snore or More race these days? Because the entry fee in those orgs is actually cheaper when you figure in inflation than it was in the 1990s.
 

ACME

Well-Known Member
UTV's and the internet are the reason all the limited classes have seen a reduction in new blood coming into them...

Everyone wants a trophy truck and believes a UTV is a cost effective way to get into off road racing
 
Top