[reijo]

The SCCA has "outlawed" the Fiat 500 for autox competition due to risk of roll-over. In stock class you can run R-compound tires and by their formula the 500 is prone to rolling over....so you cannot compete with this car.

Anyway, the formula is relatively simplistic and likely not correct.

For the record, I do not own a Fiat 500, but was hired to do a bunch of test drives at the Calgary New Car Show from Wed-Sun last week and was assigned the 500.....so I logged some hundreds of km. in a Sport with an auto, sun roof and sirius radio ... Long and short of it, I did not feel that the car was overly tippy.

Anyone find out what the height of the CG of the car is? Or any other roll-over data/information?

It would be a shame not to be able to autox this fun car!

Oh, and I've been autoxing since before Fiat left the North American market.

TIA,

Reijo

 

[zonker]

I've never felt the car to act like it was tippy on slalom type turns.

And I would think if the car was t be autox'd it would most likely be equipped with springs or coilovers that would lower the roll center as well.

 

[lorvar]

The SCCA has been watching too much Youtube Abarth races.

 

[WLDTOPO]

"Outlawed" is a misrepresentation of the SCCA's classification of the Fiat for Solo or autocross racing. I spoke to a SCCA rules official and here's the scoop. The SCCA has a formula that is applied to all vehicles seeking classification for running in Solo events. The formula roughly involves using the vehicle height and track measurements. Using the SCCA formula the Fiat does not meet the required spec PENDING more information on the vehicles center of gravity information. The accurate statement is that the SCCA requires more info on the Fiat to ensure that the vehicle is not a rollover risk before it will assign a class to the car to run in Solo/autocross events. Simply put, the car is just an unknown right now. What is also gray right now is if lowering the car an inch or increasing the track by a few centimeters allows the car to meet the SCCA formula requirements for Solo/autocross. It should be noted also that the SCCA has approved the car for the new B-Spec road racing class with minimal mods.

 

[reijo]

Yes, you are right. I used "outlawed" since it was late and I could not think of another word. In any case, in LA it is not allowed to run in stock condition.

If you lower it and widen (e.g. wider tires outside of the fender wells as in SP class), that would improve the situation obviously.

Basically it is too high and narrow in stock condition (even in Abarth trim) to be allowed to run by the current rules ... and, yes, they are interested in doing something.

But that will involve calculating the CG and roll-over potential from scratch (I'm an engineer btw) ... so the solution may not be simple and we may require design data for the height of the center of gravity (CG) from CAD programs used to design the car ... e.g. right from Fiat.

Anyone have contact info......?

I don't have a dog in this fight but I could see myself owning one of these wonderful beasts!

I am currently running a B-stock S2000.

Oh, and Zonker, the problem is when people bolt on R-compound rubber and all of a sudden the car can corner at over 1.0 G's ... And R's are allowed in stock class SCCA autoxing.

R

 

[zonker]

Oh, and Zonker, the problem is when people bolt on R-compound rubber and all of a sudden the car can corner at over 1.0 G's ... And R's are allowed in stock class SCCA autoxing.

R

What a great problem to have

 

[andyandrews]

No hard data has been presented in this forum. But just eyeballing it, does the 500 seem to have a particularly low center of gravity? You be the judge...

 

[Boff]

I wonder what our provincial organization is going to do (CASC Ontario Region). The classes generally map to the SCCA classes, except for the street tire classes which are quite a bit different. Can you enter an SCCA street tire class with the 500? I won't be auto-xing my 500 unless my RX-8 conks out.

 

[FOliveira92]

honestly, i see quite a bit of classic cars at SCCA sponsored events that are probably way more prone to rolling than a 500.

 

[FOliveira92]

And R's are allowed in stock class SCCA autoxing.

this is why the street tire classes came about.
when i first started auto-xing i went to a couple of events in mid ohio where they didnt have street tire classes at the time. if you showed up on r comps and every one else in your class was running street tires, youre pretty much the winner.

 

[Maypo]

First off, hi Reijo! (This is black-Exige Mark from Puyallup.)

My wife recently bought one of these little beauties and I am considering one (probably the Abarth) for myself. Having had a slew of Fiats back when, we are thrilled at their return; and, being long-time autocrossers, we fully expected to enter Solo combat with one. When we heard the 500 was persona non grata in SCCA we decided to do our own CG measurements, instead of waiting an indefinite period for the powers-that-be to assess the car. It turns out, the 500 does fall short of SCCA's minimum spec for competition, which is an SSF (Safety and Stability Factor) of 1.30 or greater. Our testing resulted in an SSF of 1.25. Lowering the car 1" would achieve the target SSF. Less-offset wheel would have a smaller effect. Of course, then it is no longer a Stock Class car...

The Abarth looks to also be below, but pretty close to, the magic 1.30. However, with its stiffer underpinnings, it should have an easier path to acceptance.

SCCA is assessing its criteria in light of evolving NHTSA testing, and both models may ultimately be deemed 'safe enough.' Time will tell.

 

[reijo]

Hi Mark! Sorry haven't been on here for a while ... and recently not having much success in B-stock in the AP1 S2k has got me thinking again .... also the Abarth!

A thought just occurred to me ... adding wheel spacers! I believe you can add a 1/4" on each side ... and still be in stock.

Hmmmm...

R

 

[Maypo]

Well, the spacers are legal, but the half-inch track increase isn't going to get you to the 1.30 SSF. Good news, however -- interesting that you should post today, as I was just getting ready to share a photo and video of the car in action. Its first angry drive was yesterday at Shelton Airport. Ours has the Vogtland springs (1.5" lower).

In this picture, you can see that we generated so much straight-line speed that the clear-bra began peeling off! ;-)



Video of part of one run:

 

[Pinecone]

You CAN run the Fiat 500 in STF class (street tires).

I have heard that the Abarth has been accepted in G Stock class, but did not see it in the latest published class listing. Supposedly the SCCA got CG height data from Fiat and that showed that the Abarth met the stability requirements.

Someone on SCCA Forums mentioned that the standard 500 only needed to be something like 1/4" lower, which the Abarth at .6" lower would be fine.

But someone needs to do the CG measurement. You needs scales and the ability to tilt the car on the scales (you can take the car off, change the scale heights and put back on).

 

[Tweak]

Clear bra peeling...hopeful that was not at all serious or else someone did a terrible job! Pretty cool quick vid, would thought all windows closed would be more ideal to be the tiniest bit faster although I doubt it matters enough to worry with such things. Thanks for sharing.

 

[HundredYardHero]

I hope this all gets figured out and the 500 is able to compete. I was really looking forward to autoxing it!

 

[Maypo]

You CAN run the Fiat 500 in STF class (street tires).

Right, STF is where we were running the car.

I have heard that the Abarth has been accepted in G Stock class, but did not see it in the latest published class listing.

It's listed now.

Someone on SCCA Forums mentioned that the standard 500 only needed to be something like 1/4" lower, which the Abarth at .6" lower would be fine.

I don't think 1/4" will do it, as our measurements were 1.25 for the SSF; and I believe the Abarth is something like 1.32. But, nearly any aftermarket spring set will get you to legality.

But someone needs to do the CG measurement. You needs scales and the ability to tilt the car on the scales (you can take the car off, change the scale heights and put back on).

Done. See post #11.

 

[deja vous]

nice video and not much tire squeal

 

[Pinecone]

Is it listed in Fastrack? The latest car/class listing on the website does not show it.

http://www.scca.com/assets/2012 SCCA Solo Stock Category Classifications By Manufacturer - May.pdf

You commented on your calculations, but did not state that yo had actually measured the CG. The 1/4" comment was made based on overall height, not CG height.

Unfortunately, lowering springs are not allowed for Stock class. And you can already run in ST, so that doesn't make a difference.

EDIT --------------------------


OK< it is in the June Fastrack.

NOT RECOMMENDED
Stock
- #7780, Fiat 500 classing. The base Fiat 500 falls outside the height vs. track width requirements as published in Section 3.1 and as such is not legal for stock class competition.

The following new listings, effective immediately upon publication, have been recommended by the SAC and approved by
the SEB:
Fiat 500 Abarth (2013) GS
Note: New information concerning rollover potential has been received allowing the Abarth version of the Fiat 500 to
be classed.

 

[Pinecone]

Here is the quote for the height reduction and stability:

I might as well post this here too. ( i posted it in the rules forum also).

The SSF data is still published, they just apply their "rollover risk" calculation to it and post that number instead. You can back calculate the SSF from the rollover risk data.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicl...
go to page 18 of 36 and you have the EXACT equations used to calculate the rollover risk percentages as a function of SSF and including the dynamic test results...or not.

and running the numbers for a SSF=1.3 you get a roll over risk rating of 13.9635%. so at 14.5% rollover risk, the fiat has a SSF=1.285. To get the car to have a SSF=1.3 (and thus be legal for stock class per the solo rules) you'd need to lower it .25".

certainly seems like a borderline case here, why not just let it run?

From SCCA Forums.