Kevin Stevens wrote:
>Not really. What's confusing is that none of the other suspension rules
>for Stock or SP require that you meet any factory alignment specs at
>all. So it's very confusing to have a new allowance in SP that
>requires, by itself, a more restrictive requirement than Stock. That
>you can then make other changes that take you beyond the factory specs
>just makes the whole thing confusing, because you have a compound rule.
Not true. If you are running in Stock in a vehicle with some
non-adjustable alignment parameter (camber on an '88 CRX, for example) then
to be legal, the car MUST be within that spec or it is illegal. The same
is actually true in some situations in SP, if there is neither a factory
allowance for adjustment nor some legal method of adding such an
adjustment. What this rule change is intended to do is allow SP
competitors with vehicles with non-adjustable parameters to at least get
within the factory-specified range when such a situation occurs. Obviously
there are some issues with this - there are going to be situations where
some shim may effect both toe and camber, or may be argued to do such, so
what's legal? We have gotten requests for relief on this. Anyone taking
advantage of such an allowance will have some additional restrictions to
deal with. But shims are certainly well within the spirit of the rules of
things you should be able to do in SP.
Paul and Meredith Brown
MR2: "Not the easiest car in the world to work on"
/// 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
|