In a message dated 7/7/00 3:01:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lamfalus@excite.com writes:
GH Sharp wrote:
>> Alignment "adjustability" is just another thing you have to consider if
>> you're trying to pick a certain car for a certain class. It's one of the
>> advantages or disadvantages that are part of the "package" you select,
>> and the classing of the car over a period of time will reflect that.
>> Your argument misses the fact
>> that there are some cars with minimum alignment adjustability that are
>> capable of winning their class at the National level. If everyone was
>> allowed additional or unlimited adjustability on cars that don't have it
now,
>> those cars that are already at the top of their class would have to be
moved
>> to a higher class. How will this increase parity within the current
classes?
>>
>> GH
And Mike replied:
> A very good point. Are there any cases where you think this to be true?
> Not debating, just asking as I can't immediately think of any.
I'm glad you asked that question! Let's take a look at AS:
BMW M3 ~1.0deg neg for '95's, ~0.6-0.7deg neg for '96+ (like my '98)
Porsche 968 over 2.0deg neg
Porsche 944S2 similar numbers to 968(?)
Toyota MR2T over 2.0 deg neg
Porsche Boxster ~0.6-0.7deg neg
The first four cars have each won several National events while running
against each other over the past 2-1/2 seasons, and the Boxster has
swapped wins with the 968 and MR2T this season. This is with the same
group of drivers over 2-1/2 years and in most cases with everyone on the
same brand of tires, so there aren't many variables to argue about. Now
give both the Boxster and the M3 2.0deg of negative camber. Think that
might make them faster? Think they should stay in their current class?
I'm sure there are other examples of this scenario, this just happens to be
one I'm in the middle of......
GH
|