And you can sleep in your race car. 
Which I might have to do if I drag home a sub $1k minivan. 
And you can sleep in your race car.
Which I might have to do if I drag home a sub $1k minivan.
ProDarwin wrote: This class scares me. Most vans mentioned here don't meet SCCA rollover requirements for *street class* which runs on **street tires**. A lot of them out outside of them by a significant margin. I don't see how auto crossing them on R comps **won't** result in rollovers.
Rules say cars that dont meet the SCCA static stability factor are relegated to 200 TW rated tires or higher.
Not that you don't still have a very valid point though.
Test of updated avatar...
rcutclif wrote:ProDarwin wrote: This class scares me. Most vans mentioned here don't meet SCCA rollover requirements for *street class* which runs on **street tires**. A lot of them out outside of them by a significant margin. I don't see how auto crossing them on R comps **won't** result in rollovers.Rules say cars that dont meet the SCCA static stability factor are relegated to 200 TW rated tires or higher. Not that you don't still have a very valid point though.
Ah. I fail at the rules.
But yes, still scary.
Further adding bad ideas:
That is indeed an early Odyssey with a 5-speed swap AAANNNND most importantly, a complete touring car-style reverse-head H22 engine
Below is the way SCCA currently defines the roll-over rules for autocross for reference:
34 — 2015 SCCA® NAtioNAl Solo® RuleS
3. vehiCleS
A. Rollover Potential Guidelines
The SSC has reviewed the allowance of competing cars with higher
roll centers and has prepared the following chart on the next page to
be used as a guideline for assisting Regional members in determining
whether a vehicle has a higher than average potential to roll over in
Solo® competition. Vehicles falling into the acceptance range still have
the possibility to roll over but they are less likely to roll over than those
that are not in the acceptable range are. The following chart is for all
vehicles not specifically listed in Appendix A.
The measurements are to be taken from the ground to the tallest point of the vehicle for the Overall Vehicle Height and the normal track measurement as stated in Section 12 for the Average Track Width.
The SEB may use a Static Stability Factor (SSF) for classing new vehicles. SSF is defined as ½ track width (T) divided by the height of the center of gravity above the road (H) and can be calculated by the formula SSF=T/2H. Vehicles with an SSF of less than 1.30 should not be permitted to compete in Solo® events due to the higher risk of rollover.
Actually the chart above is out of date... The line for the cutoff is between 45/45 and 75/75 now.
ProDarwin wrote: This class scares me. Most vans mentioned here don't meet SCCA rollover requirements for *street class* which runs on **street tires**. A lot of them out outside of them by a significant margin. I don't see how auto crossing them on R comps **won't** result in rollovers.
They could just add one more event. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xwc5F5mJqsM
In reply to stafford1500:
for reference, a 2002 honda odyssey then is 68.5 inches tall and has 66.1 inches front and rear track. So it would be too tall by 2.4 inches. I guess there is another reason for lowering kits and wheel spacers!
Well, I have already picked my Pro driver for the Slalom
In reply to Robbie:
The most appropriate way to approach the issue is to determine the actual CG height and do the SSF (Static Stability Factor) calculation. Bigger numbers are better...
Just remember to try and take weight out of the top side first.
rcutclif wrote:Driven5 wrote:You'll need a roll bar/cage if you plan on going faster than 12.99 (something like that, don't quote me) in the drags...Still a van?
I figured a roll bar/cage was pretty much a given on any build with serious intentions for this class, let alone an open-top van. In fact, I'd potentially consider a circular/cylindrical exo-cage that is designed to allow the vehicle to roll all the way over, right back onto its wheels, and keep going...It could even be made to be full self-righting on a flat surface.
stafford1500 wrote: determine the actual CG height
How do you do that?
Robbie wrote:stafford1500 wrote: determine the actual CG heightHow do you do that?
It is a pretty basic process of checking the CG fore-aft location with the vehicle flat then lifting one end 18'24" in the air to determine it again. Using a little math you get the effective height of the CG above the ground (at static loads). The other option is to make up a spreadsheet that uses the X Y Z coordinates and weights of all the major assemblies and work it out that way.
NickD wrote: Further adding bad ideas:
Shhh! Stop that...
stafford1500 wrote: Actually the chart above is out of date... The line for the cutoff is between 45/45 and 75/75 now.
Which is why the chart is a little silly. If Height > Avg. Track Width, not acceptable. No chart needed.
Ford Freestyle? It's big and has a third row. I think it's based on the Taurus though which makes it just a tall Wagon? I was checking one out in the parking lot and it looks like it's one of those "right on the edge" vehicles. Not thinking it would be competitive, but it would actually be useful to drive the kids around in and should be easy to lower and what not.
Andy Neuman wrote: In reply to Spinout007: Next task is finding one that has a LSD, or an easy to find option.
MK7/8 Seems like the easy button. Enough weight reduction it could even been a top 10 contender.
ProDarwin wrote: This class scares me. Most vans mentioned here don't meet SCCA rollover requirements for *street class* which runs on **street tires**. A lot of them out outside of them by a significant margin. I don't see how auto crossing them on R comps **won't** result in rollovers.
Part of me is wondering if that's the point... How hard can you push it on race tires before you start bicycling?
In reply to Spinout007:
More importantly: How long can you keep it bicycling?
In reply to mazdeuce:
We don't want to get into real SUVs but we have agreed to allow Aztec and Rendezvous since they are near vans. Would seem that Chrysler Pacifica and Ford Freestyle/Taurus X would fit too.
Word of caution, some of those Fords have a crappy CVT.
NickD wrote:
These stickers on the windshield are dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Falken tires...
In reply to JohnRW1621:
Gotcha. I'm probably headed a different direction but this class has a LOT of options. Not all of them good, but certainly options.
Team T-Bone is officially in. Bringing a Dajiban. Picked up a 99 B1500 with a 5.7 for $750. Former telephone/cable van or something like it. Doo-doo brown and looks like it was painted with a roller. Runs on starting fluid, thinking it's a bad fuel pump. Now to figure out how to lower it! I'll post up some pics once we get all the crap out of it and wash it.
moparman76_69 wrote: I'll post a few formulas for Chrysler vans when I get home.
Ok so the factory turbo vans were only made in 89 and 90. Both in 3 speed auto and 5 speed. early quad headlight vans (84-86) were available with a 2.2 chrysler or 2.6 mitsu. Later 1G (87-90) were available with a 2.5 3 speed auto and 5 speed and 3.0/3 speed auto (6G72 chrysler/mitsu engine). 2G vans (91-95) were available with 2.5 5 speed or auto, 3.0 4 speed auto and 3.3/3.8 4 speed auto, with AWD available with a 3.8.
The 3.0 had a 5 speed available in other cars, that makes a 5 speed swap on a 1G or 2G with a 3.0 possible. It is also possible to use a later 6G based engine.
3G (96-00) vans had 2.4/3 speed auto 3.0/3.3/3.8 4 speed auto available. They had AWD available with the 3.8.
The 2.4 was still available in 01 and 02 (maybe later) With a 4 speed.
Obviously the 2.4T engine would swap into any year van, on the later vans it would be necessary to source a 2.4 van for the mounts if you're not starting with one. On earlier vans you'd have to fab some of the mounts.
IMO either a 2.5 turbo or 2.4 swap 5 speed 1G or a 3.0 5 speed would be the way to go. A 2G AWD van with a 3.0 and 5 speed swapped in, or a 3G AWD with a 2.4T and auto trans from a GT cruiser swapped in. The electronics on the earlier vans would be easier to deal with than the later vans.
The Pacifica was availble in AWD and at one point had a 4.0L V6 with 255hp. Honestly I wouldn't call it a van, but if you allow it, I'd try and find a ragged out one and strip it. Then throw a 50 shot on it and hope the transmission holds.
You'll need to log in to post.
