It actually appears to have a relatively wide track. Perhaps once Chevy releases official SSF numbers, the ban will be lifted.
It actually appears to have a relatively wide track. Perhaps once Chevy releases official SSF numbers, the ban will be lifted.
do you think they will release them? We know how the manufactorers LOVE grassroots racing
Letter 6585 was mine.
Numbers are released. Per www.safercar.gov, the Sonic has a rollover rating of 12.4% which equates to a SSF of 1.34. Both are within the limits of section 3.1.
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=6506
I spoke to Doug Gill at the SCCA yesterday, and submitted another letter to the SEB citing the now published numbers.
I wrote letter 6585 back in October and I'm guessing that at the time of its review by the SEB, the numbers were not available yet. Sonic owners (such as myself) should be good to go by the time the season starts.
jstein77 wrote: It actually appears to have a relatively wide track. Perhaps once Chevy releases official SSF numbers, the ban will be lifted.
Per C&D, the track is 54.3" and overall height is 54.7"
Twin_Cam wrote:Gearheadotaku wrote: Won't the stability nanny make the car slow enough to be safe?OnStar: "We're seeing that you are trying to actually do something fun with your car. Are you alright? Has there been head trauma? Should we shut your car off for you?"
LOL!
theenico wrote: the track is 54.3" and overall height is 54.7"
puke
Driving something like that makes me feel nauseous
Twin_Cam wrote:Gearheadotaku wrote: Won't the stability nanny make the car slow enough to be safe?OnStar: "We're seeing that you are trying to actually do something fun with your car. Are you alright? Has there been head trauma? Should we shut your car off for you?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8As1zshWxn0
LOL!
Someone do a chop-top and run it
mr2peak wrote: Someone do a chop-top and run it
Or a wide body, with box flairs for super awesomeness.
Twin_Cam wrote: You can get any car to roll with a stock suspension and really sticky tires. Case in point:Banning the Sonic is stupid. Oh, and that picture was hotlinked.
How did this come to pass?!
Here's a pretty good explanation on how rules and "logic" are applied to classing cars and the dreaded "exclusion list".
Jeff Cashmore said: Rollovers and 2 wheeling is bad for our sport. Duh, we all know that. Trying to push the envelope by allowing non-approved tippy vehicles endangers the driver, corner workers and our future ability to sanction events due to insurance risks. So here’s the deal regarding Static Stability Factor and SCCA Solo. From section 3.1 of the Solo rule book. “Vehicles with a SSF less than 1.30 should not be permitted to compete in our Solo events due to their higher risk of roll over.” First appearing in the 2008 rulebook, this is where the club drew it's line in the sand regarding a non-interpretive, repeatable rule regarding rollovers. I believe they tried to select a number that gave a reasonable amount of risk/safety for a first time entrant on sticky tires. Even experienced drivers can get up on two wheels or worse. SSF is a mathmatical formula which = avg track width / (2 x Center of Gravity Height). Forget about the chart in 3.1 for now. From section 12.5, TRACK = The distance between the centerlines of the wheels as competed without driver, measured as follows: From centerline to centerline of wheels. It's not measured from the outside of the driver side wheel to the outside of the passenger side wheel. It's also not the published width of the car, which is typically outside mirror to mirror. The hard part from a classing perspective is getting a published CG height, especially before the car is widely available. The www.safercar.gov site used to publish it but now they only seem to publish a Risk of Rollover percentage number and a Tip/No Tip Dynamic Test Result. The ROR number starts with SSF and then adds a J-Turn test. Some newer cars don't even show these numbers. Some digging came up with the following info for comparisons sake. All of these cars scored 4 stars or better on the Rollover Rating and No Tip on the Dynamic Test Result, so those two ratings don't do us much good. Year Car Risk of Rollover SSF 2010 Honda CR-V 4x2 17.4% 1.22 2010 Honda CR-V 4x4 15.5% 1.22 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser 13.6% 1.23 2010 Ford Flex 16.4% 1.24 2010 Chrysler Towne and Country 16.4% 1.24 2010 Ford Edge 15.9% 1.25 2005 Honda Odyssey minivan 14.0% 1.26 2005 Chevrolet Aveo 13.3% 1.27 2005 Subaru Outback Wagon 15.9% 1.27 2005 Toyota Matrix, 4x2 15.1% 1.27 2005 Toyota Matrix, 4x4 14.0% 1.27 2005 Ford Freestar minivan 14.7% 1.28 2005 Toyota Echo 14.7% 1.28 2010 Honda Odyssey 14.0% 1.30 2010 Nissan Versa 14.0% 1.30 2005 Ford Focus 2-DR 14.0% 1.30 2010 Toyota Matrix 13.6% 1.31 2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser 13.6% 1.31 2010 Chevrolet Aveo 13.3% 1.32 2005 Ford Focus 2-DR 14.0% 1.33 2005 Ford Freestyle 14.3% 1.33 2005 Toyota Prius 13.0% 1.33 2005 Toyota Yaris 13.0% 1.33 2010 Ford Focus 14.0% 1.33 2005 Toyota Corolla 12.7% 1.34 2005 Kia Spectra 13.3% 1.35 2010 Honda Fit 12.4% 1.35 So the Risk of Rollover number doesn't quite line up exactly with the SSF numbers. Should we allow the 2005 Chevy Aveo with it's lower than 14% ROR but a too low 1.27 SSF? How about the 2005 Ford Freestyle? For now at least, we're sticking with SSF only. The good news is that Car and Driver magazine has started to publish the CG height on some of it's newer tests, but not all. Longacre's website describes how to find a vehicles CGH better than I can. I'm guessing you'd want to start with a full tank of fuel. Getting back to the chart in section 3.1. "The SSC has reviewed the allowance of competing cars with higher roll centers and has prepared the following chart 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." and "The following chart is for Regional Officials and Technical Inspectors to determine the acceptance level of high roll center vehicles referred to in Section 3.1. 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 the GCR for the Average Track Width." FYI, the GCR is the General Competition Rules used for SCCA road racing. So the chart is to be used when the suspect vehicle hasn't already been classed or listed on the exclusion list. From what I can tell you should ignore the SSF references on the chart. SSF uses CG while the chart references the height of the vehicle. I'm working on getting it edited. Note that 3.1 also includes, "This chart is for Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared categories vehicles." Speaking of the exclusion list, there's no practical way to list every tippy car/suv ever made on there. We are aware of a few cars under 1.30 that are classed in the Stock section of the rule book. Feel free to go to http://www.sebscca.com and list any that you know of. Remember that SCCA is a club and we all share a responsibility to improve it. Them is us, yadda yadda. It seems easy to write multiple negative posts on forums but very hard to fill out one form on http://www.sebscca.com that would actually have a positive impact or outcome. To sum up the Fiat 500, Chevy Sonic, etc. situations, until we can get published CG or SSF numbers we have to go by the chart. These cars may be eligible for classing at a future date. The reality is that if you allow these or other tippy cars to compete at your events the club can pull your event sanctions. It's just not worth it. This post is unofficial, opinions are my own, etc.
As noted, the author is stating opinion. That same person is a long-time member with seven National championships to back-up his thoughts.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: How did this come to pass?!
Stock suspension, Kuhmo R-comps, grippy concrete, a very zealous driver, and a tight corner. Rumor has it his alignment was slightly off when all four contact patches came back into contact with the Earth.
oldsaw wrote: Here's a pretty good explanation on how rules and "logic" are applied to classing cars and the dreaded "exclusion list".Jeff Cashmore said: Rollovers and 2 wheeling is bad for our sport. Duh, we all know that. Trying to push the envelope by allowing non-approved tippy vehicles endangers the driver, corner workers and our future ability to sanction events due to insurance risks. So here’s the deal regarding Static Stability Factor and SCCA Solo. From section 3.1 of the Solo rule book. “Vehicles with a SSF less than 1.30 should not be permitted to compete in our Solo events due to their higher risk of roll over.” First appearing in the 2008 rulebook, this is where the club drew it's line in the sand regarding a non-interpretive, repeatable rule regarding rollovers. I believe they tried to select a number that gave a reasonable amount of risk/safety for a first time entrant on sticky tires. Even experienced drivers can get up on two wheels or worse. SSF is a mathmatical formula which = avg track width / (2 x Center of Gravity Height). Forget about the chart in 3.1 for now. From section 12.5, TRACK = The distance between the centerlines of the wheels as competed without driver, measured as follows: From centerline to centerline of wheels. It's not measured from the outside of the driver side wheel to the outside of the passenger side wheel. It's also not the published width of the car, which is typically outside mirror to mirror. The hard part from a classing perspective is getting a published CG height, especially before the car is widely available. The www.safercar.gov site used to publish it but now they only seem to publish a Risk of Rollover percentage number and a Tip/No Tip Dynamic Test Result. The ROR number starts with SSF and then adds a J-Turn test. Some newer cars don't even show these numbers. Some digging came up with the following info for comparisons sake. All of these cars scored 4 stars or better on the Rollover Rating and No Tip on the Dynamic Test Result, so those two ratings don't do us much good. Year Car Risk of Rollover SSF 2010 Honda CR-V 4x2 17.4% 1.22 2010 Honda CR-V 4x4 15.5% 1.22 2005 Chrysler PT Cruiser 13.6% 1.23 2010 Ford Flex 16.4% 1.24 2010 Chrysler Towne and Country 16.4% 1.24 2010 Ford Edge 15.9% 1.25 2005 Honda Odyssey minivan 14.0% 1.26 2005 Chevrolet Aveo 13.3% 1.27 2005 Subaru Outback Wagon 15.9% 1.27 2005 Toyota Matrix, 4x2 15.1% 1.27 2005 Toyota Matrix, 4x4 14.0% 1.27 2005 Ford Freestar minivan 14.7% 1.28 2005 Toyota Echo 14.7% 1.28 2010 Honda Odyssey 14.0% 1.30 2010 Nissan Versa 14.0% 1.30 2005 Ford Focus 2-DR 14.0% 1.30 2010 Toyota Matrix 13.6% 1.31 2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser 13.6% 1.31 2010 Chevrolet Aveo 13.3% 1.32 2005 Ford Focus 2-DR 14.0% 1.33 2005 Ford Freestyle 14.3% 1.33 2005 Toyota Prius 13.0% 1.33 2005 Toyota Yaris 13.0% 1.33 2010 Ford Focus 14.0% 1.33 2005 Toyota Corolla 12.7% 1.34 2005 Kia Spectra 13.3% 1.35 2010 Honda Fit 12.4% 1.35 So the Risk of Rollover number doesn't quite line up exactly with the SSF numbers. Should we allow the 2005 Chevy Aveo with it's lower than 14% ROR but a too low 1.27 SSF? How about the 2005 Ford Freestyle? For now at least, we're sticking with SSF only. The good news is that Car and Driver magazine has started to publish the CG height on some of it's newer tests, but not all. Longacre's website describes how to find a vehicles CGH better than I can. I'm guessing you'd want to start with a full tank of fuel. Getting back to the chart in section 3.1. "The SSC has reviewed the allowance of competing cars with higher roll centers and has prepared the following chart 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." and "The following chart is for Regional Officials and Technical Inspectors to determine the acceptance level of high roll center vehicles referred to in Section 3.1. 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 the GCR for the Average Track Width." FYI, the GCR is the General Competition Rules used for SCCA road racing. So the chart is to be used when the suspect vehicle hasn't already been classed or listed on the exclusion list. From what I can tell you should ignore the SSF references on the chart. SSF uses CG while the chart references the height of the vehicle. I'm working on getting it edited. Note that 3.1 also includes, "This chart is for Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared categories vehicles." Speaking of the exclusion list, there's no practical way to list every tippy car/suv ever made on there. We are aware of a few cars under 1.30 that are classed in the Stock section of the rule book. Feel free to go to http://www.sebscca.com and list any that you know of. Remember that SCCA is a club and we all share a responsibility to improve it. Them is us, yadda yadda. It seems easy to write multiple negative posts on forums but very hard to fill out one form on http://www.sebscca.com that would actually have a positive impact or outcome. To sum up the Fiat 500, Chevy Sonic, etc. situations, until we can get published CG or SSF numbers we have to go by the chart. These cars may be eligible for classing at a future date. The reality is that if you allow these or other tippy cars to compete at your events the club can pull your event sanctions. It's just not worth it. This post is unofficial, opinions are my own, etc.As noted, the author is stating opinion. That same person is a long-time member with seven National championships to back-up his thoughts.
Thanks for that. Yours is probably one of the most usefull and informative posts in the entire thread.
In reply to theenico:
Just as a follow up, the Fiat 500 Abarth was banned from stock class as of the May fasttrack. However, in the April issue of Car and Driver they do a comparo of the Abarth against a Mini S. Car and Driver is now measuring and listing the CofG of most of the new cars they test.
According to the CofG value for the Abarth, it has an SSF of 1.314. So it should be legal.
Sonic owners need to get a real published value for the CofG. It will likely calc an SSF that is legal for stock class, assuming the CofG is less than around 22.7".
Chris H.
RexSeven wrote: Anywho, I'm guessing lawyers are somehow involved in this decision, for example, in the freak occurance a Sonic does go shiny-side down, SCCA doesn't want to be held liable for allowing a car without an SSF rating at an event.
If you want to make a lot of work for lawyers on both sides, show up at an event with a Sonic let them ban you from running then sue the SCCA and force them to prove that the Sonic is unsafe, or at least more unsafe than other cars currently running in various stock classes. When all the litigation is paid for, SCCA dues will be going up. That's how the system works.
Come to think of it, this could make a lot of work for test drivers too. 
Published rollover accident figures are skewed by the car type and therefore owner type.
Generally speaking, if the same car has 2 and 4-door versions, the 2 door will be far more likely to be involved in a rollover. Wagons are usually not even on the map compared to their trunk-endowed (tailgate-disabled) versions. Hard math says the wagon should be more likely and the 2/4 door models shouldn't have much if any difference, but the problem with the hard math is that it doesn't take into account the different kinds of people who would make the decision to buy that car type.
Should find some other kind of competition these things could be in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeu7_-iwdw
subrew wrote: In reply to theenico: Just as a follow up, the Fiat 500 Abarth was banned from stock class as of the May fasttrack. However, in the April issue of Car and Driver they do a comparo of the Abarth against a Mini S. Car and Driver is now measuring and listing the CofG of most of the new cars they test. According to the CofG value for the Abarth, it has an SSF of 1.314. So it should be legal. Chris H.
It is still disappointing.......I bet it'll go to B or C stock anyways
yamaha wrote:subrew wrote: In reply to theenico: Just as a follow up, the Fiat 500 Abarth was banned from stock class as of the May fasttrack. However, in the April issue of Car and Driver they do a comparo of the Abarth against a Mini S. Car and Driver is now measuring and listing the CofG of most of the new cars they test. According to the CofG value for the Abarth, it has an SSF of 1.314. So it should be legal. Chris H.It is still disappointing.......I bet it'll go to B or C stock anyways
I didn't realize it was that fast...
About five years ago I went to my first SCCA autocross. Since then I've become a regular autocrosser, winning my local (stock) class three years in a row and even winning my class in a Pro-Solo last year. Now I'm investing a load of time and money in a Street Prepared car to have more fun and learn more things.
This club has changed my life for the better. I'm so glad someone is willing to take the time to get the necessary insurance, find sites, schedule events, almost always on a volunteer basis to make these events happen. I'm the last person on earth who is going to whine about how they do it. Thanks for making it happen.
As for "banned", I don't think that's accurate. Not allowed to run for now, but I didn't read it as "never will ever be allowed to run". I think they need more info.
Down the road when the kids are off to school I'll try to volunteer more of my time to keeping these events running. At that point, I'll voice my opinion about these things with the understanding that comes with actually being involved. Until then, just a sincere thank you to the men and women making the difficult, unpopular calls.
irish44j wrote: Or really, just have two classes "actually stock using street tires" and "Stock R." problem solved, everyone's happy.
There's a thought...
(Closes eyes, folds arms)
Meka Leka Hi Meka Hiney Ho!
Done.
http://www.scca.com/events/news.cfm?eid=3893&cid=50923
Let me know if I can do anything else for you.
Snowdoggie wrote: If you want to make a lot of work for lawyers on both sides, show up at an event with a Sonic let them ban you from running then sue the SCCA and force them to prove that the Sonic is unsafe, or at least more unsafe than other cars currently running in various stock classes. When all the litigation is paid for, SCCA dues will be going up. That's how the system works. Come to think of it, this could make a lot of work for test drivers too.
This is why we can't have nice things.
You'll need to log in to post.
