autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: swaybar info

To: "Crooke John" <crooke_john@bah.com>, "Isley, Jason C." <JIsley@cell1.com>
Subject: Re: swaybar info
From: "Kent Rafferty" <gs96@sgi.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:37:05 -0400
John's proposal is an interesting one.  To add to his post, the SCAC
could factor the swaybar restriction into its new car classing.
Alternatively, we could set a date, say 2003, when all stock cars have to
run stock swaybars so anybody buying a replacement bar now would
know its useful life.  I think this type of transition was done for stock
class engine blueprinting a few years ago.

Kent Rafferty

> John Crooke wrote:
> I would like to see the stock class remain as stock as possible.
I understand the spirit of allowing replacement parts for those that
normally wear out in the lifetime of a car, like shocks, muffler, air
filter, tires, and so on.  I don't understand why sway bars ever got on
that list. Some have mentioned that it was necessary to make some
cars safe for autocrossing in the olden days.

> If that is so, why not grandfather the rule? Today's cars, and I'll argue
that all cars since 1980, were designed to handle reasonably well (at
least safely) in their stock configuration. There is no need to allow
replacement of the stock sway bars in a new car.

> Why not say, then, that all cars model year 2000 and later may not
exchange swaybars? Currently classed cars would remain competitive,
and folks who buy new cars can do knowing there's a chance the guy in
the '99 car might be a little faster. But the guy who goes out to get the
new
car is making his/her own bed



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>