![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.rhoadescamaro.com\/build\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/DSC09350.jpg\" "\\"DSC09350\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\nSo while I’ve been slacking, John Coffey of Beta Motorsports<\/a> got started on the car this past week, and was kind enough to snap a few photos along the way.<\/p>\n The rear axle was removed and taken to Unitrax, they’ve checked it for straightness and given it a clean bill of health. \u00a0They’ll be setting it up with the new ring & pinion I located. \u00a0There’s a nice variety of final drive ratio choices available for the car: http:\/\/camaros.org\/drivetrain.shtml#AxleCodes<\/a><\/p>\n My initially chosen ratio will provide a bit over 66mph at my initially chosen redline, with a rear tire that does 820 revs\/mile. \u00a0There are options to add more top speed in second (besides raising the limiter to unsafe levels), but I think this will be a good start. \u00a0At Nationals in 2010 I only hit 68-69mph top speed in the Viper, and with its R-comps, the Viper had a higher speed at the apex and could come off the corner harder than the nose-heavy street-tired Camaro will be able to. \u00a0At Nats 2009 we hit 72, and I did hit 74 and 72 at the SD Tour and El Toro Pro in 2010, so we’ll see. \u00a0A taller final drive would make it a bit easier to drive, but I’m worried it might chug a bit (by V8 standards) off a really slow corner. \u00a0At Nats 2010 there were a couple 30mph corners in the Viper, and I’ve seen National-level events with 25-26mph corners. \u00a0Sure, there’s always first gear, but after having done a bunch of shifting for 3 years in the Viper, I’m looking forward to a more traditional second-gear-everywhere approach in this car. \u00a0Not having ABS is going to keep my feeble and already-overloaded mind busy enough when braking into a slow corner.<\/p>\n ***Along the above lines – I have an extensive process I use in evaluating cars (like the 240sx, Viper, or this thing) for a class, a part of which I’ve skimmed in the paragraph above, and lightly in other posts. \u00a0If you’re interested in seeing this process more thoroughly described, email me (jason@rhoadescamaro.com) to let me know. \u00a0It’s going to be a lot of work to explain everything so I don’t want to start on that road unless I know people are interested. \u00a0I’d do so in a parallel blog as it’s not really Camaro specific. \u00a0Analysis would broken down into the following seven chapters, which cover everything your car does in an autocross or track lap:<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n A while back I bought a pair of subframe connectors: ( http:\/\/www.rhoadescamaro.com\/build\/?p=263<\/a> ) and John set about modifying them. \u00a0We’re allowed three mounting points:<\/p>\n H. Longitudinal (fore-aft) subframe connectors (\u201cSFCs\u201d) are permitted But these only have two attachment points, at the very front and rear. \u00a0If I’m adding 24 pounds of steelitis, I’m going to get every last bit of value out of these boat anchors! \u00a0John will be adding an intermediate attachment point to bolt them to the rockers, but he needs to get them in position first. \u00a0Along with that is the installation of the (stock height) replacement subframe bushings. \u00a0Would probably use aluminum here if the rules allowed, but since they don’t, delrin it is.<\/p>\n So apart come the subframe bushings, last torqued down about 44 years ago by some fellow in Van Nuys, CA:<\/p>\n John cleans things up a bit before proceeding:<\/p>\n And loosely put together with the new bushing-<\/p>\n Similar process for the rearward body mounts:<\/p>\n And together with new bushing and subframe connector-<\/p>\n Need to ensure the subframe is square to the body before anything is tightened down, so out come the plumb bobs:<\/p>\n I suspect it’ll come out of John’s shop with a more accurate subframe alignment than it had when it rolled out of the factory \ud83d\ude42 \u00a0It’ll have to come apart again later when it’s time for paint, so John will put some things in place to aid in more rapid future alignments.<\/p>\n Driver side connector initial install, no problems:<\/p>\n Passenger side, BMR<\/a>, we have a problem:<\/p>\n The passenger side connector has a bit of counterclockwise-when-viewed-from-rear “twist” in it, and the rear backets are not square. \u00a0This part ain’t goin’ on the car! \u00a0I imagine BMR will ship me another one to make this right, so it’s not the end of the world. \u00a0I consider myself lucky to even have a decent part available that’s legal for this ruleset – pretty much every other subframe connector involves cutting the floorpan (you can see how a straight path would require this), and welding things to the car. \u00a0Who knows, maybe they were doing their website’s photo shoot the day my parts were made, which distracted the welder-<\/p>\n <\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n\n
\nwith the following restrictions:
\n1. They must only connect previously unconnected boxed frame rails on unibody vehicles.
\n2. Each SFC must attach at no more than three points<\/strong> on the uni-
\nbody (e.g. front, rear, and one point in between such as a seat
\nmount brace or rocker box brace).
\n3. SFCs must be bolted in place and not welded.
\n4. No cutting of OE subframes or \ufb02oorpan stampings is permitted.
\nDrilling is permitted for mounting bolts only.
\n5. No cross-car\/lateral\/triangulated connections directly between the
\ndriver\u2019s side and passenger\u2019s side SFCs are permitted. Connec-
\ntions to OE components such as tunnel braces or closure panels
\nvia bolts are allowed and count as the third point of attachment.
\nNo alteration to the OE components is permitted.
\n6. SFCs may not be used to attach other components (including but
\nnot limited to torque arm front mounts or driveshaft loops) and
\nmay serve no other purpose.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a> <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n