I know how to liven this place up . .

#1

Anyone notice the new regs are up? :whistle:

#2

Nice.
It’ll be fun to watch the F1-type camber numbers in the comming years.

RP

#3

Sounds like the rule requires everyone to get their cars to the frame straightener to make sure they are within OE spec. Modification by crash is still modification.

#4

I think it should be lowered to 2.8 since that is the limit for an unbent car.

#5

I made 11 rule change requests, some of them were just semantics tho. I just did a quick scan of the rules and it looks like the only one I didn’t make a good enough case for was about swapping bumper types in “pairs”.

#6

The unlimited camber rule works as stated - As to Kyle’s point it needs to be on a straight car that has been repaired to 7.6.1 & 7.6.2. A quick minute of measuring the front end chassis structure is an easy protest, and it’s not very difficult to see ridiculous amounts of camber. Especially if you start seeing strut bars with threaded centers to accommodate an overly narrow strut tower spread dimension Two cars that are within OE chassis dimensions should have identical max camber conditions…

#7

Can someone explain the adjustable rear spring perches to me?

#8

I would suggest that the threaded strut bars are illegal under the new rule.

#9

Well the threaded strut bar itself isn’t illegal. But it would be a very good indicator that something isn’t right. There are no rules on what specifies the strut bar. But why someone would require an adjustable one would be a flag to a competitor… you could although I don’t see why have a threaded strut bar that fits the oe dimensions. That scenario would be well within the rules…

#10

Truthfully, I did not read the rules in detail, but, at a glance it looks like camber is no longer a DQ or checked item ?

Right?

I’m okay with that.

So, if it is unlimited, one can forget about all the frame gobblety gook and the adjustment from this-that-or the other camber kit. If you want more camber go to Ireland and have the strut tubes bent.It isn’t enforceable…(At least as a co-regional director I don’t know how I would enforce it.) The racer’s story:I just got an old car that was pothole-modified.

Is this cheating? Who cares…can’t enforce it, does’t matter. Or does it?

RP

#11

[quote=“Patton” post=69576]Truthfully, I did not read the rules in detail, but, at a glance it looks like camber is no longer a DQ or checked item ?

Right?

I’m okay with that.

So, if it is unlimited, one can forget about all the frame gobblety gook and the adjustment from this-that-or the other camber kit. If you want more camber go to Ireland and have the strut tubes bent.It isn’t enforceable…(At least as a co-regional director I don’t know how I would enforce it.) The racer’s story:I just got an old car that was pothole-modified.

Is this cheating? Who cares…can’t enforce it, does’t matter. Or does it?

RP[/quote]

Yes, it is cheating. NASA apparently needs to invest in some new OE benchmark parts to check tolerances - at least at the National level. You can easily measure the strut to spindle dimensions with the caliper bracket and rotor removed. Your racer’s story doesn’t hold, (I sense sarcasm though)… the racer is responsible to bring a vehicle that meets the comp. ruleset - doesn’t matter if they had no knowledge that the part was out of spec to begin with.

I think the new rule just put ownership of enforcement in the competitors hands rather than being able to be spot checked by officials however. That’s where I see the shortcoming.

#12

I love that we won’t have to worry about camber at Nationals anymore.

#13

OK, guys…with the new tire, what are the recommended camber settings? Anyone experimented yet? cb

#14

You get a spring perch that can be adjusted at the bottom so that you can adjust the ride height on the rear corners. Presumably this will require … err… allow us to somewhat corner weight the cars. Although I suppose you had a rough means of doing this before by playing around with spring pads.

That said, I’m not sure there are any that will work with our “bee-hive” springs?

Here’s an example:

http://www.turnermotorsport.com/p-11728-hr-rear-ride-height-adjustersspring-perches-for-60mm-id-springs-e30-3-series-1984-1991.aspx

#15

The problem with these is the extra ride height you gain in the rear and no way to compensate in the front. I’ve had good luck with adding shims to corner weight. CB

#16

Interesting. I was able to get mine really close by moving stuff around and using pads. Hopefully the new car will be as easy.

#17

You guys are going way overboard on this camber thing. Basically there was no way to enforce it without a level alignment rack and calibrated gauge. We tried to check it in my region and could never get numbers that I was confident in. This was also the case at nationals. Run as much or as little camber as you want. Based on our suspension I don’t think you will see anyone running much more then the old rule anyway. Maybe up to 4* but I can’t imagine anyone would be at 5* considering the negative trade offs. There are many ways to get to the camber you want. I can’t imagine any regional director trying to see if the car is structurally square.

I have a strut bar with the adjuster in the middle. I was using it to try and get to the spec 3.5* without rubbing. After a few bumps here and there it is no longer needed to get 3.5* camber. If you are unable to get the camber you want, ask around the paddock for suggestions.

On another note, these cars are old and tired. Especially if raced for any period of time. I would not suggest complaining about a competitors car being “factory” straight. Odds are that your car is not there either and everyone gets the DQ.

#18

Mike O., I’m just glad we don’t have to worry about camber or how the racer got there.

Now, to Chuck’s question: what will the hot set-up be with the new tire?

RP

#19

If we can have whatever camber we want the rule should say that we can bend struts or whatever we need to do to get it. I will need to bend my struts and that’s probably what I’ll do.

#20

[quote=“Patton” post=69594]Mike O., I’m just glad we don’t have to worry about camber or how the racer got there.

Now, to Chuck’s question: what will the hot set-up be with the new tire?

RP[/quote]

The hot setup? It depends on track etc :slight_smile:

Looks like caster is open now too. Camber plate selection was limited because one couldn’t have caster adjustments built in and be legal. Sound like its open field now.