Thanks, Dean,..........and, the principle used throughout the entire
Production Car Specs was, "if it is not specified, then no deviation from
stock is allowed........" or something like that. Of course today we use
steel cranks and aftermarket rods and such that were not allowed at the
time, but are certainly a good idea.
But again, lest anyone misinterpret my motives here, I don't really want to
get into a debate about "correctness", and I would not personally object to
such a chassis change. After all, I do have one component on my car that is
not to spec, but you have to find it. Plus, as others have mentioned,
current vintage rules allow a lot of leeway.
At 09:26 AM 2/28/03 -0500, Dean Tetterton wrote:
>I just happen to have a 62 GCR. The section on Wheels, Chassis, and
>brakes for production cars:
>
>The following additional changes and modifications are permitted:
>j. The make and type of shock absorbers, but Not their numbers, or
>system of operation (i.e. lever or telescopic), or their system and
>points of attachment, unless specifically listed as an allowed option
>for a given model by the SCCA.
>
>The specifications for TR4 list a Rear Shock Absorber Kit ( telescopic)
>This is not listed for TR3.
>
>Basically if you could buy it from Triumph, you could use it.
>Dean Tetterton
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-fot@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-fot@autox.team.net] On
>Behalf Of Jack W. Drews
>Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 9:01 AM
>To: fot@autox.team.net
>Subject: suspension thoughts
>
>There's one consideration regarding TR suspension that has not yet been
>discussed.
>
>I don't have a copy of the 1963 (or so) SCCA rule book, but having raced
>
>during that era, it sticks in my mind that the rules for production cars
>
>stated that suspension pickup points must be stock. This would prohibit
>modifying the chassis to move the pickup points. This rule was similar
>to
>the rule for radiators which said that any radiator was allowed as long
>as
>the original mounting holes were used.
>
>Maybe my memory doesn't work so well any more, like some of my other
>body
>parts, and maybe with all the other things that we do that are not
>according to 1963 rules, it doesn't matter. I would certainly not
>complain
>about another competitor who did this, but I won't do it.
>
>uncle jack
uncle jack
|