Mark writes:
<< So some cars which cannot adjust camber should be allowed to slot their
strut mounting holes, because other cars in the same class come with
adjustable camber? >>
No, all cars should be allowed to get 2 degrees negative by slotting, etc.,
and all cars should be limited to that as a maximum... Another of my
brilliant ideas that got shot down in committee...
<< Some cars which have less power should be allowed some motor mods to
bring them up to the standard of other cars in the class? >>
No. That's where proper classing comes in. All cars won't weigh the same,
have the same power, wheel width, wheelbase, etc. The whole package gets
classed. But something as easy as making holes in an interior panel to
adjust shocks, when we allow Miatae to modify their upper shock mounting to
facilitate Konis, and allow the Sentra strut modification to facilitate new
inserts, etc. just seems reasonable to me.
<< Some cars with narrower rims should be allowed the same width as the
widest in the class?
These "leveling the playing field" arguments rarely hold water under
close scrutiny. >>
See above. I'd make something really easy allowable. And a 1991 SEB agreed.
Last I knew, the current SEB didn't...
> 2) it's comfort and convenience to not have to A) either drive
> around every day on your autocross settings or B) take things apart
> before and after the autocross.
That doesn't match my interpretation of C&C (must be C&C for a purely
street driven car; the word "autocross" is not allowed in C&C
arguments), but everyone is obviously allowed their own interpretation
until an official ruling is made. >>
I guess it doesn't match the SEB's either. I adjusted my Civic and RX7 rear
shocks based on the load I was carrying, too, and I'd include that in C&C. I
know I'm out of step with current thinking. I think ACR's, 1LE's, M030's,
SS's, WS6's, Saleens should all start in SP, too! Obviously none of that
flew...
CHD
|