In a message dated 10/7/03 11:03:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JWoesvra@aol.com writes:
> . Jasons' recollection is that the very first year or so the cars used the
> stock spring perches, but that soon after (a year or two at most) the cars
> were changed to use the threaded collars which he machined from scratch to
> fit
> over the stock struts and bottom on the stock lower perches. I suspect like
> most developments that circumvent the rules, once everyone realized that the
> rules were run around the threaded perches were made legal.
>
> regards, J.R.
>
There are two parts to this puzzle
1. Legality
2. Historical precedence
My interpretation of the GCR as far back as 1965 makes me believe that
modifying the shock body (or strut) was legal, since shocks could be freely
substituted with anything that was available. However, my research indicates
that
Sharp (Jason) was the first to actually do it on a production car.
Even the most restrictive organization ought to allow 240z's this benefit.
Since the time line is roughly 1972, anything after that should also benefit.
Under the update-backdate clause, I would allow all 240z's to be covered.
To carry this a little further, in SVRA Group 8 where these cars compete, I
would allow the same consideration for the other makes and models in that Group.
The Triumph Spitfires and GT6's are a different story, running in Group 1 or
3, both of which have 1972 cutoff dates. They should not have adjustable
spring collars.
It takes a lot of effort to keep up on and enforce these things. Most groups
simply do not have the resources to do it consistently. It is really up to the
competitors to do the research and police themselves.
Jack Woehrle
|