autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Camber Limits - none required

To: Jim Rohn <rohns@doitnow.com>
Subject: Re: Camber Limits - none required
From: Scott Meyers <solo2@uswest.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:37:59 -0700

Jim Rohn wrote:

> At 9:48 AM 7/8/00, Scott Meyers wrote:
>
> >Another view offered.......
> >
> >This makes (camber allowance) far more sense than "open front sway bar"
> >idea to me. As long as Stock classes are being reshuffled, this would be
> >a good time to readjust allowances, or even take away *all* such
> >"goodies"! I especially think that the $1000 shocks (per corner) need to
> >be outlawed.
>
> ooooh, ooooh, ooooohh (<poor Horschak imitation)
>
> how about a "claiming" rule for shocks instead? :-)
> $1000 says you can buy any set of 4 from any car in the class you are
> running in ....
>
> discuss

$1000 is still a lot of money to many of us - how about the "new value of
factory stock shocks"?  Yep, I'm suggesting factory shocks or Pep
Boys/Sears/Checker/Etc. shocks, claimable for the face cost  :-)  ? This would
lead us to non-adjustable shocks, of course for *stock* class.........

> >By allowing some degree .... :-)  .... of camber adjustment for all stock
> >cars, I fathom that tire wear factor would be better (i.e., cost
> >effective).
>
> agreed. But why would there have to be a "limit?" Once past a point, more
> negative camber is NOT a good thing. Measurement is too difficult to police
> anyway, so just say alignment is open to any measurement (front and rear I
> guess too).
>
> That allows the use of crash bolts even if your car wasn't graced from the
> "factory" with them. I do think there MAY have to be some sort of minimum
> size for the bolts though. Too skinny and we may have some safety issues
> (SNAP!). May be best to allow the combination of a percentage reduction of
> the original bolts size and a *reasonable* amount of Showroom Stock
> preparation on the struts and knuckles...............

**Totally** agree with the camber "no limit" idea - why police it when there
is a naturally occurring "point of diminishing return". Same for the safety
thickness idea for the crash bolts. Who in their right mind would run a size
that would break?

Oh.

Well, besides him?  :-)

Scott Meyers
Just trying to be more agreeable these days.......


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>