Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> I maintain that:
> 1) it equalizes cars that can't make the adjustment without the hole
> to those that can.
> ...
> I do accept that making adjustments between runs is an advantage, but
> when I ran C/S in my RX-7 I had to run against Miatae and MR-2s that
> can adjust shocks without panel removal. Didn't seem fair, until I
> was given the "tweeter" idea...
So some cars which cannot adjust camber should be allowed to slot their
strut mounting holes, because other cars in the same class come with
adjustable camber?
Some cars which have less power should be allowed some motor mods to
bring them up to the standard of other cars in the class?
Some cars with narrower rims should be allowed the same width as the
widest in the class?
These "leveling the playing field" arguments rarely hold water under
close scrutiny.
> 2) it's comfort and convenience to not have to A) either drive
> around every day on your autocross settings or B) take things apart
> before and after the autocross.
That doesn't match my interpretation of C&C (must be C&C for a purely
street driven car; the word "autocross" is not allowed in C&C
arguments), but everyone is obviously allowed their own interpretation
until an official ruling is made.
Mark
|