>
>>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).
Sounds like those who are whining about not being able to get any
negative camber should be whining to the respective manufacturers of
their cars. Here's a sample letter:
Dear (Honda/Mitsubishi/Toyota/Mazda/Ford/BMW/DC/GM/etc):
Please provide a means for the grassroots racer to achieve negative
camber values of (insert your desired camber spec here) degrees.
Please also consider adding a really fat rear bar, 8" wide wheels, a
hollow catalytic converter and a "cheater" ECU program that is
activated by flashing the hi-beams 3 times...
--
Erik Van-der-Mey erik@nolimitsperformance.com
No Limits Performance, Inc. http://nolimitsperformance.com
1997 Dodge Neon ACR - Lapis Blue (yea, it kinda looks purple...)
|