> I'm amazed that SCCA Solo rules allow such swing axel cars
> to compete without a camber compensator. In my opinion,
> the person most likely to get in trouble is the first
> timer or novice driver of such vehicles and the camber
> compensator certainly would add a level of safety not
> otherwise present on the vehicle.Bill Sohl
>
> Bill Sohl
>++++++
>Feh!
>
>I'm glad you don't make the rules.....you might as well require
>engine cutout at speeds of over 25 mph, as a first timer or novice
>driver might get into trouble above those speeds, and it would add
>a level of safety not otherwise present on the vehicle......
>
>Camber compensators are good things, but you can get by just
>fine without them....and I wouldn't want to be limited by
>rules designed for the least common denominator.
>
>JZ
>
Well, I guess I've been flamed for safety considerations. I'd
like to oint out that the rule at the tme was generated to avoid
having a novice get into trouble, particularly in a slalom.
I suppose that can be viewed as the least common denominator, but
I doubt that JZ or anyone else can take a swing axle car and
obtain as good a time without a camber compensator as with.
So the rule in this case didn't limit anyone (except, of course,
if you didn't have one you couldn't run). In fact, it made the
swing axle cars more competitive than in purely stock trim.
Now I don't claim to be a safety nut, but I can easily justify
the camber compensator to avoid having an unneeded accident
or rollover at an event. Just this August, an early Spitfire
came dangerously close to a rollover situation at the Roadster
Factory's party weekend at the autocross. And that car was driven
by someone that had autocrossed before.
Bill Sohl
|