Front Springs??

#1

How about a discussion to move the rules to allow smaller diameter springs in the front so the darn things won’t hit the shock towers. The rules allow 3.5 neg, but 98% of the cars won’t let the springs move enough to get to that magic number, unless something is done. You look at cars at the track and people have that much camber, but how? Let’s make a step towards getting some adjustability in our cars. I know Carter wants to keep it simple, but they are race cars.

#2

Just because the rules used to allow -3.5 doesn’t mean that -3.5 is the magic number. :wink:

#3

Let’s not mess with the rules. Part of a successful class is rules stability.

#4

3.5 might not be magic, but E30s like negative camber in the front. Most race cars run 3+ neg in the front and our cars are no exception. And the fact that if you don’t change the rules the class will be more successful? Look at SCCA’s best class the SRF with over 800 cars built. They worried about not changing rules, let the class get stagnant, didn’t sell new cars, but then came out with a some big improvements, and the car sells have jumped. If you don’t continue to improve, you go backwards. Why not change the rules to allow something that is already being done. SpecE30 people are achieving negative camber by being creative, why not have a way all people can easily achieve the same goal.

#5

Don’t know about smaller springs, but from time to time I
have wondered about the pros and cons of helper springs to keep the main spring properly seated every time you jack up or completely unload the front end.
Helpers are cheap and add nothing meaningful to the spring rate, although they would change the ride height (presumable for the worse). Has anyone tried using them in E30s??

#6

To keep the springs in place, I use 2 zip ties on the lower plate. There two small holes conveniently located.

This does nothing to keep the top in position, but I have found that if I have the wheels straight ahead when I jack it up and return to same position before I lower back down, they tend to reseat without any special effort.

#7

you want a rule change because you springs rub??? Really, I got money and time to burn, lets go for it.

#8

Not because they rub, you know as well as I do that you can’t get enough camber in the car unless you get creative. Small springs would just allow everyone to get the camber they desire without doing something not everyone is willing to do. I would assume we would get adjustable spring perches to allow for adjustability as well. Just dreaming!

#9

I would rather be allowed to get creative than to buy smaller springs.

#10

+1

It does seem silly to have a max allowable camber in a “spec” class that is hard to actually achieve.

#11

Not sure everyone saw this for 2013:

9.3.8.1.1 Front camber is unrestricted within the limitation and adjustability of bolt-in camber
plates, and an eccentric bushing at the rear mount of the lower control arm. No
modifications to the body and/or interior tub panels are allowed.

#12

Also

9.3.8.1.2. Any adjustable or fixed camber/caster plates are allowed, unless specified in
these regulations.
a) They must be installed in the location intended by the manufacturer, per their
instructions.
b) The three front strut mounting holes may be slotted laterally, only to enable more
range of camber adjustment.
c) The strut tower center hole may be notched/trimmed, but only as is necessary to
enable clearance for installation of the tightening hardware (i.e. nuts, bolts, washers)
originally supplied with the camber plates.

#13

Amazing what one can find within the pages of the rules!! Whoo-hoo!!!