On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Linnhoff, Eric wrote:
> I would guess that it's "free" as long as you don't change the angle of the
> strut in relation to a stock strut. Changing the angle could gain one more
> camber or castor and that wouldn't be in the spirit of parity that the SCCA
> is trying to promote. Since a McPherson strut is the suspension locating
> member I'd be loathe to change any of it's parameters in the Stock Class
> lest I incur the wrath of a protest committee.
>
> Why, what's your quandary?
The dreaded previous owner of our new car enlarged the holes on the
lower bracket through which the bolts that attach it to the carrier fit.
The distance to the spring perch and/or top mount has not changed.
On the one hand, reading the rules and the service manual, this would
appear to be legal.
On the other hand, I think this would allow a bit more flexibility in
alignment ( which is probably why it was done, to align the car after it
was lowered ). And if that was legal, there wouldn't be such a fuss over
which cars can and can't legally use crash bolts.
If the bracket is part of the "strut" ( to which it's welded ) and the
"dimensional characteristics" of the strut don't include the diameter of
those holes, my original struts would seem to be legal. Otherwise, I have
to track down replacement struts, or have these brackets replaced, if
possible.
( For the record, I don't need or want any additional adjustment, I'd
just rather not have to find and buy new struts if I don't have to. )
Thanks.
--
D a v i d H i l l m a n
hillman@planet-torque.com
|