On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> Here's my idealistic approach:
>
> 1) Eliminate the front swaybar allowance. (NO one knows why we have it...)
'K.
> 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)
But there are also lots of aftermarket wheels available pretty cheap
(autox your stock wheels, buy cheap sparkly ones for the street), and eBay
auctions to buy takeoffs from all over the country. I can't think of many
cars for which it would be a true hardship to run stock wheels.
> 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.
I don't know that anything is feasible for shocks. OE only can be pretty
expensive too, given how quickly some of them wear.
> 4) Eliminate the braided brake line allowance (stupid)
Yes.
> 5) Leave all the other allowances alone
I'd like to see the harness mounting provisions clarified, and C&C
tightened up. I know we're on opposite sides of the tweeter/shock
adjustment hole debate. I see nothing wrong with saying "Yes, you can
drill a hole for the tweeter. No, you can't reach in that hole and adjust
the shocks." Seems to fall right into the common "serves no other
purpose" language.
KeS
|