--- Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
>
> Are you ready to throw all the stock vehicle
> classifications away for 3-4
> years while we all develop our swaybars and change
> the relative
> competitiveness of the cars?
Slightly exaggerated, methinks. There just aren't
that many ways to make a silk purse from a sow's ear
using roll stiffness alone. 'Sides, Stock class
makeup changes over 3-4 years anyway (unless you're
talking about Spec Miata which wouldn't be affected by
this proposal :)
>
> Are you proposing that both ends have free swaybars?
I think the idea was that either end could have a free
swaybar, but not both. Both would not be in the
spirit of Stock IMO.
> If so, are you ready to
> put a 1.75" bar on the front and a 1.25" bar on the
> rear to increase the
> spring rates and make your car handle great?
For shame, CHuck! Sway bars affect roll stiffness,
*not* spring rate. Your homework assignment is a book
report on Milliken and Milliken, due tomorrow. ;)
> guarantee there will be
> someone who will go to Speedway Engineering and
> build $800 worth of swaybars
> to make it handle better, then put it on a trailer
> so they don't have to
> drive it on the street.
>
which approximates what people are already doing with
shocks. What makes swaybars any more or less wrong?
It seems to me that someone who really wanted to get
the rule changed would do well to go about it thusly:
1. find out what the "intent of the framers" was in
the original front-only rule,
2. demonstrate how/if changes in the typical street
car have rendered the reasoning no longer valid,
3. explain how the proposed rule would better realize
the original purpose with modern cars,
4. don't prejudice the SCAC/SEB by kvetching about
how they never want to do anything reasonable,
and
5. pay absolutely no attention to anything anyone
says on team.net, including me! (I'll leave it up to
the reader to find the paradox here.)
Craig Blome
|