Joe, I’m for any rule change (or rule non-change) that helps me get past you.
Here’s what I feel like I’ve learned in the discussion. The ruleset defines ways you can change your car to:
- be faster (e.g. exhaust, suspension, air filter, drop weight, etc.)
- be safer (mostly covered by CCR)
- be reliable (e.g. radiators, HD rockers, oil system, reinforcements, etc.)
- restore OEM behavior and functionality (e.g. rear toe/camber adjusters for RTAs, head gasket thickness, spring pad height adjustment for rear springs, etc.)
- look (e.g. decals, 50/50, etc.)
Rule changes in #1 are generally frowned upon because it translates to the need to spend more time/money on the car. Though there are certainly those that wouldn’t mind spending more to go faster.
Rule changes to #2 don’t seem to happen that often, but probably aren’t generally up for debate anyway
Rule changes to #3 and #4 are generally “optional” and changing them probably doesn’t bother anyone
Rule changes to #5 are generally cheap and not commonly changed anyway
The debates arise when a rule that serves #2-#5 can double as affecting #1. One such possible rule that comes to mind is allowing an adjustable cam gear for cases where the head height has been reduced – to help return the timing to stock. But this can also be used to affect valve timing for performance reasons. As a result, that rule hasn’t been added.
In the coilover discussion, I think the cost control people outweigh the faster people – which is understandable given the nature of the series from the very beginning. I think what’s left of this discussion really boils down to whether there are changes that can support #4 – allowing people a cheap means to address body deformation, geometry compliance, and cross-weight issues without the possibility of that mechanism being used to allow racers with more disposable time/income to be faster than those who don’t.
In parallel to this, there’s also the question of allowable camber adjustments – which is a #1 item that “everyone does”, but not within the bounds of the ruleset. I share the same concern with Chuck around codifying a rule change around such a safety critical part of the car. It’s one thing to allow overbores or changes to the engine that may undermine long term reliability or introduce weakness, but changes to suspension seem to be more delicate when viewed from a potential legal standpoint. While I’d like to see a rule change that gives me the freedom to make this change in good conscience, I don’t know if “allowed bending” or coilovers are the right answer, either. So maybe just a “continue as is” approach is best for this particular issue – unless there are any other ideas.
Curious to hear if there are any ideas for how to address body inconsistencies (from long term wear or accidents) and/or additional front camber in a manner that can’t be abused to give the “haves” a significant advantage over the “have nots”.