Dave Whitworth said:
Let me preface this with what I've already told a few people privately: I
never intended to start the next big T.N debate, and I'm not going to continue
my end of the discussion.
> >>>) Stiffness? This
> would be more difficult to police, but we could limit spring rates.
>
> Difficult? Try impossible - how would you get the springs out of the car to
> test?
If a person wanted to, could they not protest any stock or SP car for having
excessive cylinder bore, or any of a million other items that would be
difficult to check? Is this any different? You do have to rely on the
honesty of the competitor to some extent, and if the competition feels
strongly enough that something is illegal, they can pay their money and get
the answer at the protest shed.
> >>We could
> put a limit on the amount of negative camber allowed, something like 2
> degrees.
>
> Once again, who is going to set up the alignment rack at every
> divisional/tour event? And what about calibrated gauges? Would they be
> like the scales at various events with a 50# difference?
Yes, I would presume it would be much the same as the marginally accurate
scales used at National events. The solution for the competitor would be the
same: allow yourself some fudge factor. If your minimum weight spec is 1800,
ballast to 1850. If your maximum camber spec is 2.5 degrees, run 2.3.
Nothing really new here, folks, just like a lot of other specs (and driving
styles)... if you hang yourself out on the ragged edge, you might get bit.
As I said, writing a ruleset for a truly streetable "ST" class COULD be done,
if the powers-that-be wanted to do it.
Y'all don't have to agree.
--
Loren Williams | Loren@kscable.com
'96 Mazda Miata | Wichita Region SCCA - http://wichitascca.org/
|