On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 01:35:13AM -0400, Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> Here's my idealistic approach:
>
> 1) Eliminate the front swaybar allowance. (NO one knows why we have it...)
The way I heard it, this was a safety measure for the Volkswagens
which would otherwise slam into the front bump stops and tend to
flip. It doesn't make a lot of sense for other vehicles (especially
most "sporty" FWD cars, where ideally you would get a stiffer *rear*
swaybar, and the only alternative is a smaller front swaybar -- which
is an anti-safety measure).
> 2) A) Allow alternate wheels, as long as they are not lighter than OE
> B) Allow alternate wheels and establish a reasonable minimum per
> wheel diameter.
> C) Not allow alternate wheels (this totally screws lots of competitors,
> though. There are still car companies charging $300 per wheel)
>
> 3) A) Allow alternate shocks with an approved alternate list (it would be a
> long list)
> B) Allow alternate shocks with specific limitations (one
> external adjustment, sealed tube construction) if we can figure out
> what will keep the expensive ones out.
> C) Allow only OE shocks (there will be LOTS of cheating this
> way, there was in Showroom Stock roadracing) Note: I think something
> beyond OE is needed to keep stockers off their lids with the current
> tires.
It would be nice if you could handle this by requiring that the
wheel/shock not cost more than the original equipment replacement
part. The problem would be determining "the" cost of the original
equipment part. Is it what the dealer charges? Which dealer? What
about cases like Mazda's Team Support program which gives discounts to
autocrossers who register? If you could define it well enough, you
could just make a rule and not have to worry about "claiming".
> 4) Eliminate the braided brake line allowance (stupid)
I didn't think that braided brake lines were legal in stock, just
replacement pads.
--
john@idsfa.net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|