autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [evolution-disc.] Shock Debate Summary and Suggestion

To: "Mark Darby" <markds33@yahoo.com>, "Rick Cone"
Subject: RE: [evolution-disc.] Shock Debate Summary and Suggestion
From: "bruce haden" <bhaden@ucsd.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:16:42 -0800
Hello,
 I was saving my opinion for my letter(s) to the SCCA,
then I saw this post and had to contribute my 2 cents.
 As a G Stock runner I have to contradict the
statement below. My preference is actually ONLY "A".
 Not only because I have the Pro Parts double
adjustable Koni's, but also for a much less self
serving reason.
 In 1999 I saw a Vw, which was believed to be on stock
shocks (struts), roll over while I was working course.

 If no one has brought it up yet, aftermarket
"dampeners" are, Im my opinion, a SAFETY item. As tire
manufacturers keep comming out with R compound tires
that have more grip, I think we will see more and more
cars roll over if we do not allow aftermarket
dampeners.
 I also believe that,in trying to save members money,
the SCCA would have a higher "financial risk factor"
due to my percieved increased frequency of roll overs.
 As competitors,sometimes we just have to anty up!
Mark Darby
#33 G Stock
**********************************************************
I run prepared so have no stake in this, but will add that
the above is true. Before the San Diego area went with
SCCA rules some years ago, we had a number of cars (Subaru
360 and Renault LeCar as 2 examples) listed in an addendum
to the stock section rules, that were FORBIDDEN to
compete unless they had aftermarket shocks. And, yes, we
had a LeCar roll over a full 360...

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive


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