On Saturday, March 30, 2002, at 10:43 , Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/30/02 12:12:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jemitchell@compuserve.com writes:
>
>
>> Given that no other Category requires alignment within the
>> factory-specified range of values, do you really think that this
>> will become a requirement for SP? The proposed addition to the
>> rules does not introduce such a requirement in general. Only if
>> you decide to take advantage of the use of shims or otherwise
>> non-allowed eccentrics will you be held to factory specs.
>>
>> Any idea why the addition of such a rule is being contemplated?
>
>
> As was mentioned previously, this is an additional allowance, not an
> additional limitation. Cars using this allowance are not limited to
> factory
> alignment specs, it's just that the newly allowed shims, etc. can't
> take you
> there. Your previously allowed eccentric bushings or camber plates can
> still
> take you beyond factory alignment numbers.
>
> The problem is enforcement. If I was using this allowance, I'd carry OE
> upper strut mounts so that if protested I could replace my camber
> plates with
> them and prove that w/o the camber plates, but with my shims, I'm within
> factory alignment specs.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Charlie
Not really. What's confusing is that none of the other suspension rules
for Stock or SP require that you meet any factory alignment specs at
all. So it's very confusing to have a new allowance in SP that
requires, by itself, a more restrictive requirement than Stock. That
you can then make other changes that take you beyond the factory specs
just makes the whole thing confusing, because you have a compound rule.
If the end result isn't tied to factory specs, what is the point of
having one of the means meet that requirement? What is that part of the
new allowance attempting to prevent/achieve? There may be a better way
to word it.
KeS
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|