At 9:48 AM 7/8/00, Scott Meyers wrote:
>> JCG writes:
>>
>> While I suspect most classing doesn't take into consideration where
>> a car can use them or not, I say forget whether or not crash bolts can
>> be used, and issue a stock spec limit on camber. That way all cars will
>> have an equal playing field with camber.
>
>Another view offered.......
>
>This makes (camber allowance) far more sense than "open front sway bar"
>idea to me. As long as Stock classes are being reshuffled, this would be
>a good time to readjust allowances, or even take away *all* such
>"goodies"! I especially think that the $1000 shocks (per corner) need to
>be outlawed.
ooooh, ooooh, ooooohh (<poor Horschak imitation)
how about a "claiming" rule for shocks instead? :-)
$1000 says you can buy any set of 4 from any car in the class you are
running in ....
discuss
>By allowing some degree .... :-) .... of camber adjustment for all stock
>cars, I fathom that tire wear factor would be better (i.e., cost
>effective).
agreed. But why would there have to be a "limit?" Once past a point, more
negative camber is NOT a good thing. Measurement is too difficult to police
anyway, so just say alignment is open to any measurement (front and rear I
guess too).
That allows the use of crash bolts even if your car wasn't graced from the
"factory" with them. I do think there MAY have to be some sort of minimum
size for the bolts though. Too skinny and we may have some safety issues
(SNAP!). May be best to allow the combination of a percentage reduction of
the original bolts size and a *reasonable* amount of Showroom Stock
preparation on the struts and knuckles (whattya mean that that's not legal
in Showroom Stock??!!??? Show me a Runoffs winning car that hasn't done
that, ESPECIALLY a 240SX).
Jim Rohn
still trying to stay off the top 50
|