Narrowing front end

[washeduptoo]

At the Duel in the Desert, there was a problem with some chassis with the stamped front end. It appears it was narrowed, what is the benefit of doing that and is that being checked on a regular basis? Thanks

[DirtRacer9x]

What chassis?

[anissa5]

more weight tranfer

[QQQQ]

If they are checking for the Rt frame rail being rolled up to provide clearance, the next best thing is to leave it in the stock location and pull it in by narrowing the chassis somewhere else. Anything to keep those soft spring setups from pounding the ground with the frame rail.

[washeduptoo]

That's what I was told, not what I saw so I won't say chassis but it was several during pretech that had failed. I was thinking it was to keep rf from digging into the track and that's is what I was told by others too. Might be several chassis doing this since the turned up rf frame rail was outlawed a few years back. Thanks

[andy29]

it was a combination of how they were turning the aftermarket clips and using aftermarket new lowers that very 3/4" where the lower ball joint location is. stock stuff passed tech with no issues even if they were turned within specs

[Confused?]

At Abilene this year, they measured in between the front horns. Where the idler arm and steering box mounts. Don't know if anybody got DQed or not tho.

[washeduptoo]

Thanks for the information, my information wasn't quite right it appears but there was a narrowing of frame rails I guess. That is why I wouldn't say chassis builder, could be a lot of chassis builders out of IMCA specs on that. I guess that would still not let rf frame rail dig into track to take the place of the turned up frame rail? Thanks again for the information.

[gjohnson]

If the name of your chassis starts with G and ends with T you have a problem. Better call them up.

[charcoal01]

Tried three different a arms on my shaw, all put me at a little over 3/4 of an inch too long
It's not just grt.

[DirtRacer9x]

Tried three different a arms on my shaw, all put me at a little over 3/4 of an inch too long It's not just grt.

Wheel base or track width? What measurement?

[charcoal01]

Balljoint to body mount measurement is supposed to be 18 3/8th with a maximum variance of half inch, so 18 7/8ths is the max. My car when first measured was 19 7/8ths. I had three spares including one deemed to be correct, which the "correct" one only got me to 19 1/2. Had to egg the heck out of the holes and weld washers on in order to be close enough. It's one thing to show up with a car you know you've cheated and have to fix it, it's another to believe you've bought a legal chassis only to find out otherwise and have to spend 4 hours in a pit fixing it so you can race. Pretty disappointing.

[charcoal01]

I've got a shaw. It didn't seem to hurt the performance too much after I reset the front end. Grt and shaw seemed to be the chassis everyone was fixing.

[oldtrackchamp4x]

Charcoal, i had to do the exact same thing to my car. Took a hard hit after doing fix so i am just going to put on a new shaw front clip as several measurements are not to speck. Sure hope i don't have to do same to new clip. On another note when they measure at tech make sure a straight edge is put down thru hole and is at 90 deg so when they measure from zirt back, tape is level as there is a lot of difference if it isn't. JMO

[RaceTechKs]

Let me help with this frame question, Pay attention STOCK CAR DRIVER. Because again the great tech at **** misses another frame problem. Yes a few years back "I" was the one who got the whole raised frame rail issue started when it was brought out in the open. And had more then one Chassis Manufacture that was not happy with me. That happened almost five years ago now. Now that all the fabricated frames have came into play the Chassis Manufactures just could not help themselves by leaving well enough alone, Now you guys ask why these fellas were all moving A-Arms back in the cars.......yes to the rear. Its not because the lower mounts were moved forward its because the frame has been notched in the center of the cross member and the entire right frame rail pulled in on the right side, which in turn moves the hole for the Lower Ball Joint placement back causing the measurement to be to long. So really they moved the A-Arm backwards but needed to move the entire rear frame rail back out. Why has this been done, because it gives more clearance for roll in the car on the right front.....does the same thing as rolling the frame up. Lets them run the 400 lb spring in the front and not get the frame in the dirt. To see if yours is turned in just measure the body mount holes on the frame, "T" on the chassis chart. We started looking at this at the beginning of this year. We looked at a lot of cars, and that is not all that has been found. I can tell you now this will get will get worse before it gets better. And no Im not saying what Chassis they are...