weight issue = always a sensitive one to tackle for the Zed car...
but its always nice to see a discussion going for 5 pages in motorsports section

 

[QUOTE=EnthuZ]Avalon

 

Damn, that's pretty sh*ty tolerances.

 

The Z? Or the bar?


BC

 

OK... this is why I'm certainly in no rush to run with SCCA (assuming we're talking about SCCA). **WARNING** Logical progression follows
--OK... after going through a few different sections in the 2006 GCR, there is no logical progression

The problem is the GCR does not specify any harness installation guidelines (negligent IMO). So the installation is left open to interpretation... however, the section on driver restraints reads as follows:
ok, this seems to be a holdover from the formative years when cars didn't come with shoulder belts. The recommendation IMHO is not referring to what is today commonly referred to as harnesses because of the following:So how does this apply to the stock class? Unless someone's open top car meets the above requirements, they are not allowed to run harnesses. The only addition to the above rules is this:Allowed driver restraints, depending on how you interpret section 3.3.1, means factory only belts if in a non convertible or open top car with roll-over protection.

This is SO contradictory as to be laughable... If a roll bar or cage can be added, it most certainly will add 'structural enhancement' even if it doesn't attach to suspension pick-up points (i.e. being contained in passenger compartment). So my earlier statement holds true: as long as the harness bar is not attached to the strut towers, or it's somehow triangulating the rear of the car, you should be safe and you should fight any protest against it.

BTW... rules can be read online here: http://www.scca.org/_filelibrary/File/2005SoloRules.pdf

 

I think it's more intentional rather than poor workmanship.

 

In my experience, ALL 350Z's of all years have exemplary consistency in their body building. I've allowed for potential variances in my bars "B" pillar mounting, but no one has needed to apply any corrections.



Now, isn't the topic WEIGHT?

 

Yes it is a gray area except when the manufaturer says in writing that it increases the structual ridgidity of the car. At which point that harness bar moves from being gray area to being illegal.
I think the rules are very straight forward on this. SCCA wants you to be able to use one but wants to limit the options without having to write a 900 page dos and don't of harness bars in stock class.

I wouldn't worry about it unless you are planning on going to a prosolo or national tour at which point it is "possible" you might get protested.

Here is how I see it. In my class (F125) the rules are far more murky in terms of legal parts and modifications. I feel like if something in the rulebook is not explained well enough then it is legal until the protest commitee says it isnt. This is different than doing something explictly illegal until you get caught which is cheating.

 

Of course, the GCR it states that if its not written as allowed, then it is illegal... so by your own standard, what you are doing is cheating (tongue planted firmly in cheek)

 

exactly.

 

Yeah, let's go back to weight. We don't even want to start a tolerance consistency conversation.

BC

 

Here's a weight question that I had.

Is the '06 Z heavier than the previous model year Z's? I was on Edmunds and it lists the '06 350Z 'bout 100lbs heavier in compariable trim levels than previous model years. If this is correct; where is the extra weight coming from. It can't be just in the wheels alone.