Forum

Rule 5.4 - Inner Guards

Justin Williams
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Rule 5.4 currently states "The inner guards may be altered to allow for suspension and engine fitment but must remain readily recognisable as OEM."

Is this rule still needed? The intent of the rules have always been for the vehicle to remain readily recognisable as OEM forward of the ‘B’ pillar forward. My reasoning is as follows:

1. I feel the OEM inner guard does not contribute to the OEM look. As long as you can't see the engine through the wheel arch it maintains the OEM look
2. There are several trucks out there that have almost no inner guards due to the amount cut out to fit suspension and engines
3. Cost - I know of a competitor that has on at least two occasions basically had to weld a new front onto his truck, at considerable expense, after hitting things. If the inner guard rule was dropped he would be running a tube frame above the OEM chassis to carry the guards, grill and bonnet, making for a much cheaper repair but still retaining the OEM exterior look.

I dont think we should drop the rule entirely. The trucks should still have some form of inner guard but not necessarily OEM.
[Modified by: Justin Williams on 26 November 2009 12:04:04 ]

Darin Neeley
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM

This rule was added because that same competitor asked this question a couple years ago.

I vote to remove the OEM requirement.

Tim Fensom
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM

If 95% of the competitors can get their suspension and engine mods to fit in and retain the factory inners, is there really a problem with the rule?

Competitors could drive differently or run more frontal protection if bending inner guards is a problem.

Maybe theres a place in the 3rd class for tube frame front ends.......

Darin Neeley
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 3:19 PM

The point is look at my old truck. To make room for the shock towers and exhuast, almost all of the left hand inner gaurd was removed and that is perfectly acceptable.
In my new one I'm tying the shock tower (that is almost touching the bonnet) into the firewall, the rollcage and to the bar at the front so it is effectively a tube frame. To achieve this, the inner guard is also basically removed and the shock tower will also be welded to the inner guard for extra strength. All of this is well wihin the rules as they are written.
So is the rule really even achieving anything?

PS I have made the suggestion that there is no restriction on chassis mods or inner guards for the 3rd class......
[Modified by: Darin Neeley on November 26, 2009 03:21 PM]

Tim Fensom
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Quote Darin Neeley:
The point is look at my old truck. To make room for the shock towers and exhuast, almost all of the left hand inner gaurd was removed and that is perfectly acceptable.
In my new one I'm tying the shock tower (that is almost touching the bonnet) into the firewall, the rollcage and to the bar at the front so it is effectively a tube frame. To achieve this, the inner guard is also basically removed and the shock tower will also be welded to the inner guard for extra strength. All of this is well wihin the rules as they are written.
So is the rule really even achieving anything?

PS I have made the suggestion that there is no restriction on chassis mods or inner guards for the 3rd class......
[Modified by: Darin Neeley on November 26, 2009 03:21 PM]

Wtih mods like that you must have a pretty understanding certifier, cause it must be pretty close on the frontal impact standards for a low volume cert?

And to think when i built my truck that i wasnt even allowed to cut the firewall (4x4 challenges rules, not lvvta)

Darin Neeley
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 4:11 PM

When weren't you allowed to modify the firewall? I thought that had always been allowed? My certifier reacons that with a solid chassis there is no crumple zones to effect? Also as soon as you cut it down to a 2 door light truck a lot of the rules change! So cut th back off and make it a flat deck makes a lot of things easier.

Christopher smith
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM

5.3 The firewall and floor pan may be altered to allow for engine and transmission fitment but must remain
readily recognisable as OEM.

That is the current rule as it is written.

I guess going with that rule the mdifications that you are planning must remain readily recognisable as OEM. So how do we justify how much modification we can do to a firewall to make it remain as readily recognisable as OEM? Cutting a bigger gearbag tunnel? Cutting am re-welding the master cylinder and steering mountings? Whos going to readily recognise it as a such - an - such firewall??

my opinion is to keep the current rule, almost every truck that has been built to date has complied with the rule so it can be done.

Klem Christensen
posted Nov 26, 2009 at 7:46 PM

I remember when Aaron wanted to remove his inner guards and run a pipe or some thing around the front to clip the outer guard to. There was an out cry and it was chucked out. I think " what "will you bolt the outer guard too. A sub (pipe frame)frame and then the next thing is you start to move away from the std type of truck (body). Tim is right there was a rule about not cutting the fire wall and don't know what happened to it. I do remember the talk about it and didn't see when I changed must have been in the shed trying to get every thing to fit.
You can cut the guard so why do you need to remove it. I think you need one for a WOF. I will check the big book to see about that cant be to sure.
If it means you can't get some thing to fit are you going to far out side the class you want to be in.
And as Darin said the 3rd class is where these mods could be (tried and tested) Then bring it in to the Challenge class at a later date. The 3rd class is where I see all these mods could grow and be tested and only then as that class takes of we will see a change and there might only be two class left but that will be what people want.
Cheers Klembo

Darin Neeley
posted Nov 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM

So to make this really easy, are people talking about Club, Challenge or the new Class?
Like Klem has said. leave Challenge as it is and allow this in the new class?

Arron Eades
posted Aug 01, 2013 at 10:16 PM

I know this is an old thread but the rule is still the same and is some what vague.

"The inner guards may be altered to allow for suspension and engine fitment but must remain readily recognisable as OEM"

So basically I can chop out whatever is in the way, so long as the bits I leave behind are "recognisable as OEM". Correct?

Sounds basically the same as "you must have an inner guard"