Agreed, Gabriel. That's what it says to me. But does that mean that negative
roll blocks (spacers between hub and lower control arm), which are specifically
banned elsewhere, would be a legal "shim?"
And does nobody care about Item 10? Removal of airbags would be banned. Seems
to be in direct conflict with the "Any steering wheel . . ." allowance. Mr.
Duncan has suggested adding words to exempt those who have swapped wheels, but I
would be concerned also about requiring 'bags when OEM belts and/or seats have
been replaced with safety harness and aftermarket seats. They are designed to
all work together aren't they? And if you use your harness on the street, an
airbag is nothing more than a safety hazard.
Also, many SP cars have a few years on them (mine is a '91) and does anyone want
to guess at the long term stability of these explosive devices? A co-worked of
mine lost 6 months of her life recovering from the results of a spontaneous
deployment of a 'bag of the same vintage as mine.
Uncle Ray
Gabriel Boehm wrote:
> The way this sound to me is that the rule is designed to allow you to add
> more methods of adjustment to get you back to a "Correct" (i.e. factory)
> measurements, if those settings have been altered by some other allowed
> method. (for example, if some cars are lowered, the camber will be WAY off,
> but with the addition of those "shims or eccentric bushings" they can be
> brought to the "correct" settings)
> They just don't want these parts to be added for the sole purpose of going
> away from or beyond "normal settings"
>
> Just my guess, I'm not a rules lawyer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Jay Mitchell
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: Smokerbros@aol.com; GLaws@kscable.com; autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Proposed SP suspension rule for 2003
>
> Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
>
> >There are several racks available in Topeka, I'm sure. In the
> event of a
> >protest, part of the teardown bond would be the cost of the
> alignment. As
> >always, the specs in your factory shop manual (which you are
> required to
> >have) are the ones that would be used.
>
> Given that no other Category requires alignment within the
> factory-specified range of values, do you really think that this
> will become a requirement for SP? The proposed addition to the
> rules does not introduce such a requirement in general. Only if
> you decide to take advantage of the use of shims or otherwise
> non-allowed eccentrics will you be held to factory specs.
>
> Any idea why the addition of such a rule is being contemplated?
>
> Jay
>
> /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
> /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> /// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
> /// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
> /// Send list postings to autox@autox.team.net
>
> /// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
> /// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
> /// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
> /// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
> /// Send list postings to autox@autox.team.net
/// 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
|