Loren Williams wrote:
>Require a
>minimum 4" ground clearance (arbitrary number, don't nitpick it).
Measured where? There's always zero ground clearance at the tires (hopefully)
;<)
>Easily
>checked with a 4" block of wood, if the car can be driven over it by the
>competitor without disturbing it, it's good.
Some cars that are currently legal in Stock won't pass the above test.
>(and specifically address the
>fact that ride height may be checked immediately after the car exits the
>course, so as to prevent the infamous "downjacking" struts)
The time constant of the stiffest spring/strut combination will be on the order
of fractions of a second. "Downjacking" can't be detected by measuring ride
height after a car has come to a stop.
>Stiffness? This
>would be more difficult to police,
How about impossible? That's a more accurate characterization.
>but we could limit spring rates.
So a 3400 lb. car AND an 1800 lb. car, which also have different suspension
motion ratios, are both limited to, say 500 lb/in. springs. What's wrong with
this picture? We could alternatively mandate a maximum ride frequency, a
maximum roll rate (and roll moment while you're at it), and a maximum damping
rate (as a percentage of critical), but then we'd have to find direct ways of
measuring these parameters. I don't think you'd get very far with that idea
myself, but you might run it by the SEB. If you do, be sure to let us know what
they say.
;<)
>We could
>put a limit on the amount of negative camber allowed, something like 2
>degrees.
You're proposing far more restrictive rules than Stock with no thought of the
protest shed nightmares that would be the likely result of this sort of
approach.
>With a thoughtfully written ruleset, a person COULD go build an ST car using
>the rules as a "spec sheet" and it wouldn't matter if it was daily-driven or
>not, it would not be any more competitive than those cars that ARE daily
>driven.
Yes, it would. For one thing, it would only get stressed and/or worn at events,
and its alignment and state of tune would therefore be far more stable.
>Writing rules that accomplish the desired goal, are easy to understand, >and
>can't be blatantly exploited is unquestionably difficult
You're assuming that a consensus could ever be reached as to what constitutes a
"streetable" car. I claim that, if that were really the case, there would be
far fewer car models and variants thereof on the market. Your "streetable" may
be my "buckboard," and who's to say which one of us is right?
It would be far more productive to simply move ahead with your chosen car and
class, and accept that not everybody in your class shares your philosophy. I
happen to think that's a Good Thing myself.
Jay
|