on 7/7/01 9:13 AM, Smokerbros@aol.com at Smokerbros@aol.com wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>>> Here's my idealistic approach:
>>>
>>> 1) Eliminate the front swaybar allowance. (NO one knows why we have it...)
>>
>> 'K.
>>
>>> 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)
>
> KeS responded...
>
>> But there are also lots of aftermarket wheels available pretty cheap
>> (autox your stock wheels, buy cheap sparkly ones for the street), and eBay
>> auctions to buy takeoffs from all over the country. I can't think of many
>> cars for which it would be a true hardship to run stock wheels.
>
> Probably true. The information age has helped in this respect. I think "A"
> is the most reasonable. IF you can't find more OE wheels for a reasonable
> price, you have an option. You just have a burden of proof that you're not
> gaining an unfair advantage.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I don't know that anything is feasible for shocks. OE only can be pretty
>> expensive too, given how quickly some of them wear.
>
> Not to mention the opening up of OE shocks, re-valving and re-assembling
> them. "A" puts a bit of burden on SCCA to come up with a list. And if you
> want to use XYZ shocks and they aren't on the list you have to write a
> letter... But I'd be glad to serve on that committee. I think I could come
> up with a reasonably complete list within a week or 2.
>
>>> 4) Eliminate the braided brake line allowance (stupid)
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 5) Leave all the other allowances alone
>>
>> I'd like to see the harness mounting provisions clarified, and C&C
>> tightened up. I know we're on opposite sides of the tweeter/shock
>> adjustment hole debate. I see nothing wrong with saying "Yes, you can
>> drill a hole for the tweeter. No, you can't reach in that hole and adjust
>> the shocks." Seems to fall right into the common "serves no other
>> purpose"
>
> I can buy the harness and C&C items. I still think prohibiting the drilling
> of holes for shock adjustment was a huge piece of hypocrisy on the part of
> SCCA and my fellow members of the SCAC. And the allowance of using tweeters
> and their holes for adjustment was further proof of that. Just allow the
> damn holes to be drilled and be done with it.
>
> CHD
I can only say that I'm happy to keep this can of worms opened up.
1) I've learned stuff
2) Others have clearly learned stuff
3) some of us have learned there's stuff we thought we knew that's wrong
(plus I always thought a tweeter was part of the stereo)
I appreciate the dialogue , and readily admit to being an idealist. (If you
don't dream of a better world, the implication is you're ok with the way it
is.)
MJ
|