> It doesn't make a lot of sense for other vehicles (especially
> most "sporty" FWD cars, where ideally you would get a stiffer *rear*
> swaybar, and the only alternative is a smaller front swaybar -- which
> is an anti-safety measure).
on the 93+ probe GT, some people would put on the softer front bar from the
4 cylinder model to increase front traction. it was a nationals-winning car
in its day. (and the nearly identical car, the MX-6)
on my rx7, i put on a stiffer front bar to DECREASE understeer!
-james
----- Original Message -----
From: John J. Stimson-III <john@idsfa.net>
To: <Smokerbros@aol.com>
Cc: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Stock Classes (was: Cheap Gas)
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 01:35:13AM -0400, Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> > Here's my idealistic approach:
> >
> > 1) Eliminate the front swaybar allowance. (NO one knows why we have
it...)
>
> The way I heard it, this was a safety measure for the Volkswagens
> which would otherwise slam into the front bump stops and tend to
> flip. It doesn't make a lot of sense for other vehicles (especially
> most "sporty" FWD cars, where ideally you would get a stiffer *rear*
> swaybar, and the only alternative is a smaller front swaybar -- which
> is an anti-safety measure).
>
> > 2) A) Allow alternate wheels, as long as they are not lighter than OE
> > B) Allow alternate wheels and establish a reasonable minimum per
> > wheel diameter.
> > C) Not allow alternate wheels (this totally screws lots of
competitors,
> > though. There are still car companies charging $300 per wheel)
> >
> > 3) A) Allow alternate shocks with an approved alternate list (it would
be a
> > long list)
> > B) Allow alternate shocks with specific limitations (one
> > external adjustment, sealed tube construction) if we can figure out
> > what will keep the expensive ones out.
> > C) Allow only OE shocks (there will be LOTS of cheating this
> > way, there was in Showroom Stock roadracing) Note: I think something
> > beyond OE is needed to keep stockers off their lids with the current
> > tires.
>
> It would be nice if you could handle this by requiring that the
> wheel/shock not cost more than the original equipment replacement
> part. The problem would be determining "the" cost of the original
> equipment part. Is it what the dealer charges? Which dealer? What
> about cases like Mazda's Team Support program which gives discounts to
> autocrossers who register? If you could define it well enough, you
> could just make a rule and not have to worry about "claiming".
>
> > 4) Eliminate the braided brake line allowance (stupid)
>
> I didn't think that braided brake lines were legal in stock, just
> replacement pads.
>
> --
>
> john@idsfa.net John Stimson
> http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|