So contemplating doing the suspension next year and want to accumulate parts. Knowing that vintage wants you to stay true to period what is the max we can do for suspension goodies? Lets call it SVRA rules as they seem to be the strictest....

Bushings, strut inserts, sways, torsion bars, etc. What are you guys willing to.share on setup? I will be running a 2.4 ltr.

Rears are coil over already, so I'd go with a decent set of Konis. Don't know what rules are on sway bar choices. My front has been converted to C/O's and through-the-body sway, so can't help there.
I'd look for someone running in your same class and see what they did. There's the rules and then there's what everyone actually does...
I'd give Chuck at Elephant Racing a shout. He'll have good intel on bushings and other components. He's probably built a bunch to rules so he may be able to give you good info.

I’ve run vintage for years in my car, although it’s been awhile since I’ve run with SVRA.

I’m running Bilstein sport non adjustable all around. I have ground control threaded collars in back with 250 or 300 lb springs best I can remember. 23mm torsion bars with a Tarett adjustable sway bar up front. Rebel Racing bushings up from and Elephant polybronze bushings out back. Tarett top mounts front and rear. I have a Guard LSD and no rear bar.

I’ve looking to have my Bilsteins revalued but haven’t got around d to it. As noted Chuck at Elephant would be a good resource. I know they have their own custom valves shocks.

Thats great info guys. Reading the current svra specs they say that sways, torsion ratings and bushings all free. I have bilstein non adjustables all around, sway in front, torsion bars as stock and required (no coilovers in front allowed), and also have the slip on collars for the rear springs. Anecdotal lore says svra doesnt like those but the rules dont explicitly take a position. They also dont weigh in on front upper strut mounts.

My goal would be not to get ultra fancy about it but refresh with polybroze all around and perhaps new sway bar. Car handles well so not wanting to mess too much but i also want to get ahead of failures based on what are certainly old equipment.

Another thing - probably a forgone conclusion - Definitely box / reinforce the trailing arms and tie as much of the cage to the suspension key points as the rules will allow. In stock form, the 914 chassis is pretty soft - making it harder to tune. Like I said, I'm sure you've done at least part if not all of that already.

gt stiffening kit and boxed arms for sure with a full cage of course. Tying to the suspension points however was never done. At some point plan to address as well.

got to be careful about suspension points...

the 1972 SCCA PCS rules do not allow that
most of the vintage clubs base their rules off of the 1972 scca rules...
so most of the clubs don't allow...

newer rules will..
IT classes in the SCCA

but so many clubs are based off of the 1967, and 1972 rules frozen... that the majority will not

Likely why this car doesnt have that. Been a vintage racing car since 84...

Good way to get more front camber is to stretch a arms. …….Almost impossible to detect

Lots of ways to get negative camber

For zero $
I’ve modified the strut top mount
With zero modification to the chassis pick up point
(Legal)

And Can get up to almost 3 degrees negative

But the braking in a straight line does not love that

Offset lower ball joints are another legal way

A-arms would be difficult in comparison


We found too much Negative camber was not always a good thing
And like most things there is a compromise needed

In this case it’s a compromise between braking and cornering

How much negative will the offset ball joints get me? That sounds like a good compromise. I think 2 degrres is plenty?

We’ve been running -2.25 front and -2.5 rear

I can’t remember what the ball joints come in
Vaguely want to say -1degrees

I never put these in as they were not needed

That is incorrect, below are 2 examples of car in 1971 FIA events (LeMans and Targa Florio) where the the roll bar is tied into the rear suspension.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Well interesting! Does that mean i can then show these pics and get a pass? Would love to do it...

FIA rules... versus SCCA

my motor runs a twin plug.
I attended the old Coronado Island races 2-3 times...
one year because of the twin plug... they made me run in the FIA class.

Just saying those 906 porsches were alot faster than the datsun 240Z cars that run in scca rules...

...and all this rules blah blah blah is why I run with vintage/historics groups that don't give a damn. This is supposed to be a fun demonstration activity, not a re-enactment of the 24 hours of Daytona from 1973!

Arguing over whether a tie-bar is compliant to half-a-century-old rulesset? Seriously? I get enough of that rules argumentatation with SCCA stuff.

This is supposed to be fun, dammit!

@GregAmy I agree with you BUT there are scrutineers that will ruin your day over the shape of a fender flare. Personally I think you should be able to build your car to the highest standard of the vintage period which is usually IMSA. Twin plug was an option on Porsches of the time and the 914-6 GT was legal in SCCA B-Production in 1971.

Click to view attachment

Oh, being an SCCA scrutineer and steward myself, as well as a long-time driver, I totally get it. We have a lot of those people in that org, too.

But that attitude comes from the culture of the clubs themselves, and thus from the club's membership. The scrutineers are very likely being...jerks...about stuff like this because the participants are demanding that scrutiny.

Which means the participants, and the club, are taking this sh....shtuff WAY too seriously.

This reminds me a lot of the Civil War re-enactors that have the same super-serial attitudes about minute details. Well, except for actually using bullets, mind you...sometimes I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

Change comes from within. - GA

motor section of option M491
sports clutch and transistor double ignition
performance approx: 210 DIN PS at 8000 rpm
Click to view attachment

The factory built the GT cars to run in the FIA

I “think” from memory it’s appendix J in the FIA papers

I believe when they quickly became out gunned in the FIA
The factory came up with the idea of dealer sold kits (fender flares/Gt parts) to attempt to shift the car over to the SCCA rules

I believe that’s why there were originally 200 of those kits as a homologation minimum

Rules are the only tool that reduces/ contains cost
In a different thread you mentioned that vintage racing is an arms race
Not having rules causes that arms race

Spec classes have the most strict rules and most predictable costs
Seems like you can’t have it both ways

I don't want to get into arguments over this - we're all buddies here - but you immediately lost me on that first sentence. You simply cannot understand how wrong you are on that.

I've been making, scrutineering, arguing, enforcing - and exploiting - racing regs for almost 35 years now, and all rules do is place a thin veneer of the appearance of cost containment. But it doesn't "contain costs".

And cost in spec classes are wicked far from "predictable" (go try to find a nationally-competitive Spec Miata for less than a stoopit amount of money).

Look, I'm not trying to be a penis. But you show me someplace where you think rules are cost-contained, and I'll show you examples of where that's decisively not true, without breaking the "spirit" of the rules (even though that's a silly term).

https://tgadrivel.blogspot.com/2012/11/you-...-member-of.html

I'm not "for" open regs, nor "against" the veneer of limited rules. But if you believe costs are "contained" by rules, you are misguided.

As an example, here's an oldie but a goodie. If you make it through this podcast - and it's truly a good one, especially for cynical bastards like me - you'll probably come out thinking "well, they didn't write the rules well". And, to some degree, you might be right. But in reality, it's not how the rules are written, it's how the rules are accepted (note I intentionally did not say "interpreted"). Beware becoming popular...

https://dinnerwithracers.com/episode-8-the-level-5-special/

No matter how well you write your rules, there's always someone out there with money to make you look like a fool.

Agree to disagree

I also was on the rules and eligibility committee for decades
So not here to compare resumes
My years of experience and knowledge are equal to yours

A formula ford (spec racer) is a very affordable racing vehicle platform because you can not modify or purchase faster parts

Open rules (the old PCA Gt classes come to mind) encourage the next faster thing. Look at how tube frames took over production racing

The next advantage costs money
Rules that disallow that modern thing…. Save money


Following rules limits cost

Well this all took an interesting turn

Aside from truly spec series with sealed engines and true limits there are going to be rule benders. Here in the Porsche world Norbert Singer is a legend for cars like the 935 that totally broke the spirit of the rules but stayed within them and he became the smartest man in racing.

In historic racing we arent professionals (although pro drivers come and cameo from time to time) and the world isnt watching and championships arent making the news or the radar for manufacturers. However it is generally populated by folks with deep pockets and supported by shops that want to win. It is only natural that rules are going to be bent. The challenge of keeping everyone on their best behavior while still ensuring the series is healthy is probably a pretty tricky thing to pull off. I show up with my own trailer and do a lot of work myself and cannot compete with the arrive and drive crowd. My best hope is to find someone in my class to have fun with. The guys that really want to win and deep pockets will.

Which all leads to the question:

So should i go with elephant bearing bushings or stick with the hard race poly versions?

I finally got out to the garage and put in a few hours on the race car. Snapped a couple of how the cage ties to the rear suspension points, should it be of interest. Front of car is still buried under a dis-assembled fuel cell so couldn't get a clear view of that just yet. I'll have more time at it later this week when my wife goes out of town

So, speaking of rules - this car was most recently run in SCCA VP2 class. Rules for that seem pretty open -mainly dictated by displacement. Is that an option for y'all easterners?
It also ran in SB (small bore) but I'm not sure if it was with the current engine.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I definitely have to take a closer look here. Svra, hsr are the biggest and have the tightest rules. Pca, vsca, and vrg are the less stringent ones for sure. Did you do the period gt reinforcement of the rear ear to firewall?

The 914-6R (or 914-6 GT) was a race car made by Porsche, it’s configuration were documented by the FIA in 2 Testblatt’s (group 3 and group 4) not the other way around. This was done with all Porsche race 356, 550, 718, 911…etc.
Most European race organizations classified cars according to engine displacement not performance like SCCA and modern IMSA. FIA is the predominant professional sanctioning body so it would be easiest for smaller sanctioning bodies to just follow FIA homologation standards because they are laid out with great detail and easily obtained.
The 914 in this configuration was accepted by AvD, ADAC, DARM, BRDC, l'ACIF, l'USA, IMSA, RAC and CASC to name a few. It seems to me that following SCCA rules of the era is eliminating most of the car in the world. SCCA race cars are a small subset of race cars in the world so why use their rules? I am not calling for the elimination of rules I am asking rules that were more commonly used like FIA. My answer is to allow a vintage car to conform to the rule for which it raced under backed by documentation.

https://pbase.com/9146gt/9146gt_factory_rac...rs_sn9140430181
Those Rear Bars where added in Haist to make a Race....

My expierence ..oh you need the x =angle rear hoop support bar , and or foot well intrusion bars, front foot well ..results vary..

I had front footwell protection added just recently actually so good there. Nascar bars on the driver side as well. Also changed the rear bar to correct the angle for seatbelts.

That rear sway on the yellow car is very interesting....

I found the Memo dated Feb 9 1971

1.3. Für den 914/6 wurde ein Zusatzbügel mit 2 Diagonalstreben
entwickelt. Diese Konstruktion entspricht zusammen
mit dem serienmäßigen Bügel den von der F.I.A.
geforderten Werten.

I will have to look for the FIA rollbar modification mandate for 1971
as Jeff pointed out it is for safety so who can argue with that?

I found it! 1971 appendix J has the roll cage requirements

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

But they only certified the car with a 2.0/6

IMSA gives you more wiggle room
Why not just follow their rules with your car?

@brant I am providing the documentation for the roll cage. I will run a 2.5L in this IMSA 914-6 GTU


Click to view attachment

Should work
Anywhere that excepts imsa

But I know some clubs. Like svra will bump you out of the 2.0 class
So for example you would run against frank becks car with n svra
A track record car in a very fast class
His car apparently weighs in at 1600 lbs wet with a 2.5 at 310 plus horsepower

Here is how the front half is constructed. Please pardon the mess - I'm up to my elbows in a re-wiring project at the moment. There is a central vertical post mounted to the center tunnel that the diagonals from the front bars connect to, as well as diagonals from the side bars.
Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I have no idea who built this car. I've talked to a previous owner (2 owners ago) who said it came from Ohio. I don't know if it originated there. It was Orange at some point in it's life. Maybe from the factory. I don't know if it got color changed to red right off the bat, or if it happened later.

The car was most recently run is SCCA VP2 class, which is from 1.9 to 3.2L displacement. I'll be running a 2.6, so right in the middle of the class. Against 3.2L cars I won't have a chance, but I'm strictly out to have fun. What is kind of interesting is you can prep your car to whatever era from the rule book you choose that falls after it's manufacture date.
https://www.oregonscca.com/uploads/8/5/9/0/...regulations.pdf

There is a rather prominent race here annually (the Rose Cup Races) that has a SB (Small Bore) class. I'm not sure if it exists in any other events. My car has run in that class too. Personally I'll shoot for the VP class as it also translates to ICSCC vintage groups easily enough. I'm a low budget racer so that's what I can do locally and for not much money.

I planed to go vintage racing...but just got to old. I will return to the track for DE's. My cage to suspension points is very similar to Charles. Make chassis very stiff. Best, MarkClick to view attachment Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Not sure if i am a fan of the kinked bar in the front?

Not sure if the cage would pass tech under SCCA rules (used by most vintage clubs)

As the GCR says no bars allowed to pass through factory sheet metal
Maybe IMSA or FIA

I agree, the cage is 30 years old. It also had diagonal brace in the door opening. To hard to get in now so that got removed. Mark

That dash bar is low enough to be a knee breaker in a serious crash. For that reason I don't supply a dash bar with my kits that don't require dash removal for installation.

I redid mine for that very reason. Think you dont shift forward enough to hit? Watch some slo mo incar footage of collisions and see just how far the belts and person stretches. DE included please think about moving that bar.

A buddy of mine broke his knee cap in a similar bar (not that low even) in a minor track incident while wearing a submarine strap/ 5 point belt

This is why cages are a bad idea for street use

And my builder (like chris) required dash removal and that bar to be above the bottom of the dash