RacerMike

Okay, I know this donkey is nearly dead but...

By now I'm sure anyone who cares knows that the request to allow camber kits in SP for double a-arm suspended cars was shot down (August FasTrack). However, also in the August FasTrack they asked for member comment on allowing camber bolts in SP, under the premise of providing "greater consistency between ST and SP suspension allowances." (page F192, column 2). Well, this just seemed absurd to me when they just shot down a proposal that would make the allowances more consistent, so I started up Word and wrote a little letter (below). If you are so inclined, please write your own letter (use as much of mine as you want if you desire) to the SEB (seb@scca.com) and let them know how they can accomplish their goal of making ST rules have a more natural progression from Stock to Street Prepared.

Thanks,

Mike

-- contents of letter to SEB below --

Members of the SEB -

I am writing to comment on "Item 3" of the August 2003 FasTrack (page F192) which was published for member comment, specifically, the addition of section 14.8.E to allow the use of camber bolts in Street Prepared. The comment provided with this item is that it would "provide greater consistency between ST and SP suspension allowances."

I have to question this allowance for a couple of reasons, the first being its providing greater consistency between the ST and SP allowances. If this is indeed what the SEB intends to accomplish, it should be accomplished for ALL types of suspensions and not solely for the McPherson suspended cars (camber bolts do nothing for a double a-arm suspended vehicle). However, seeing how my proposal to allow SP cars with double a-arm suspensions to incorporate camber adjustment kits such as those allowed in Street Touring under 17.8.E, was not recommended (also August FasTrack, and not only not recommended, but not even sent out for member comment!!), the claim for consistency is flawed.

Secondly, I believe this gives the McPherson suspended vehicles an even MORE distinct advantage over those vehicles which do not have McPherson suspensions. The McPherson suspended vehicles already had a simple, quick way to adjust camber in their cars; camber plates. I will admit most of them could have already used the camber bolts via the allowance in the Stock rules which allows "crash bolts" if authorized by the manufacturer, however, this now allows those vehicles TWO simple, relatively inexpensive and quick methods of attaining an optimal camber setting. Double a-arm suspended vehicles are left with ONE method of camber adjustment; a method which is neither inexpensive or expeditious. While the McPherson suspended vehicles equipped with camber plates can adjust camber at an event in less than five (5) minutes, a double a-arm car will likely be relegated to deal with whatever camber settings they arrived with. Additionally, getting offset bushings made can be a very costly endeavor. Since adjusting camber is something which must be accomplished via trial-and-error, this could necessitate several sets of bushings to be manufactured and pressed. This would require the suspension to be taken apart, new bushing pressed, suspension reassembled, and testing, only to be faced with the possibility of having to do it all over again. Not to mention the fact that this method of camber adjustment leaves the double a-arm suspended cars with virtually no hope of making adjustments at an event, let alone between runs as the McPherson suspended vehicles are able to do.

So once again, I voice my concern that the SP rules for alignment adjustments are not equal for all suspension platforms. I recently had the opportunity to ask an **** member why my original rule change for allowing suspension adjustment on double a-armed cars was shot down. I was told that there was concern it would "upset the balance is some SP classes." I don't buy into this at all; to the contrary, with the exception of possibly allowing double a-armed cars to adjust camber at an event, it will make absolutely no difference in competition potential at all. How can anyone claim that it will when camber adjustment is already attainable in these cars via offset bushings? What's really at issue here is the convenience of the legal methods to adjust camber across different platforms in SP. Why allow only a very difficult, time consuming and expensive method for one platform, while allowing a simple, quick and relatively inexpensive method for another? A lot has been made lately of how Street Touring should be have a natural progression of rules from Stock to Street Prepared, and in fact a lot of rules have been incorporated recently to facilitate this. Its puzzling that this suspension allowance has not been one of them.

My opinion is to allow any of a number of alternate methods of camber adjustment for non-McPherson suspended vehicles (http://www.modacar.com/products/Honda/Civic/MODACAK/) in SP. Not only would it "provide greater consistency between ST and SP suspension allowances", which is where the SEB is trying to go, but would allow ALL competitors in the Street Prepared ranks to obtain a quick and easy method of suspension adjustment, thereby not upsetting the balance in some SP classes as suggested by one **** member, but making it MORE LEVEL for all SP competitors. Until this is accomplished I am vehemently opposed to allowing any more suspension allowances for one particular suspension platform in SP, and therefore request that this item NOT be recommended for approval.

Thank you,

Mike Neary

carl_aka_carlos

wrote my letter....maybe they will start to get the picture soon

RineRacing

Great letter Mike , I'll be sending my letter soon.

solo-x

per our conversation out in MI, i'm now supporting this proposal. however, it is not a good idea for me to write a letter as i'll probably screw everything up. when it becomes available for member comment i'll definitely put in a vote for the allowance.

nate-dsp next year? maybe......

RacerMike

at least write to say you don't support allowing camber bolts in SP which is up for comment in August FT.

Mike

solo-x

i sent a letter. hopefully i didn't screw things up worse. i hate writing.

the jist of my letter was that i wanted to switch to dsp for next year but would have to remove my current camber adjustment method and revamp the suspension to be legal. then i pointed out the apparent hypocrisy with the camber bolts in SP and wondered why a logical progression and consistency between ST and SP was being looked at for mac strut cars but not any other suspension type.

i have to admit, i'm still nervous that someone will abuse the allowance, but like you said before, it'll (hopefully) only happen once.

nate

RacerMike

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by solo-x &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the jist of my letter was that i wanted to switch to dsp for next year but would have to remove my current camber adjustment method and revamp the suspension to be legal. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Hopefully that is exactly what they'll need to see the flaws in their current thinking.

Thanks Nate.

Mike

RacerMike

I got a reply from Mark Sipe on the SEB. Even though I thought I spelled out my "issue" pretty clearly in the letter I sent, he had this to say:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SEB &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">fyi, I don't think you read the proposal clearly. Camber bolts would be allowed on all suspensions in SP, including a-arm suspensions. Camber bolts only provide a cheaper alternative on strut suspensions to the already allowed
camber plates/strut tops. You're already allowed offset control arm bushings on
your a-arm suspension so I'm not sure what your issue is.

Mark Sipe</TD></TR></TABLE>

So I responded with this:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RacerMike &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My issue is that I have no simple legal ability to adjust my camber if I need to at an event. Moreover, offset bushings can be an
expensive and very time consuming undertaking, requiring the
entire suspension to be disassembled, bushing pressed and
reassembled. And if you happen to not have guessed correctly as
to how much camber you needed, you get to do it all over again.
Yes, we have a legal way to get camber, but its a pain in the ***,
whereas the McStrut guys get a simple, quick method which can be
adjusted at an event if need be. Not to mention that if I want to
reset my camber to within specs after an event, it requires a tear
down. And FYI, camber bolts will not work on all double a-arm
cars, mine included.

If the SEB is really intent on making ST a progression in rules from
Stock to SP, why not allow this? What is the big deal? There are
so many kits out there that there must be something that the SEB
could agree upon? The real question is not what is MY issue, but
what is the SEB's issue?

Mark, I know your job is not an easy one, and I'm really not trying to
be an ***, but its quite frustrating to me that an Ingall's kit or similar
device is not legal. In my case, I am trying to get rid of some
negative camber so I can even up my tire wear. Right now I am
getting about 40 useful funs (60 to cords) on a set of 4 Hoosiers. I
could probably almost double this if something more "adjustable"
were allowed. I guess I just don't understand the problem with
this...I mean you give us a way to adjust camber, why not just give
us a way to do it more easily?

Mike</TD></TR></TABLE>

So, I hope more people will write to let them know I am not the only one with an "issue" on this matter. Maybe they'll start to see the light...

Mike

solo-x

here's the reply i got. (one of them)

Nathan,

The SEB has been reluctant to use the ST wording for SP because of the range of items sold under the name "camber kits". Everything from simple bolts up to complete replacement a-arms. We draw the line in SP at bolt-on equipment and at "serves no other purpose". Replacement arms can be used to change the suspension geometry in ways other than just camber settings. Eccentric bolts that require weld-on flanges violate the bolt-on standard of SP.

If anything, you'll see the language on the ST allowance get tightened up.

Hope this helps to explain things a bit more.

--Andy Hollis



PS: This is not an official correspondence. But I wanted you to hear something in a timely fashion. You won't get a response on member feedback items. Otherwise they turn into endless debates with individuals members.

solo-x

and then the reply from Doug Gill. seems like a divided group in the big offices.

Hi, Nathan,

Just wanted to let you know that your letter has been logged and sent to the SEB for their consideration.

Make sense? Remember, this is SCCA. We don't make sense - We make rules! Well, anyway, there has been a lot of discussion about approving the ST allowances for SP. The Street Prepared Advisory Committee doesn't like change. So they don't go for the adjustable arms. The thinking is that double A-arms are a better design than struts so the strut cars need more help. If the A-arm cars are allowed camber adjustments, then the balance of power is against the strut cars. I hope that's close to the reality. Personally, I agree with you. When SP was created (1980s), typical A-arm cars were very adjustable, even imports. It's not always that way today. There is no outcry in ST that this isn't working. Have you ever run across anyone that thinks adjustable A-arms are hurting ST? I haven't.

Thanks for your support of our club and solo.


- Doug

Doug Gill
SCCA Solo Technical Manager
1-800-770-2055
785-232-7215 fax
dgill@scca.com
solotech@scca.com

RacerMike

Yeah, I got a similar reply from Andy. They keep mentioning replaceable a-arms but won't comment on any of the other methods of camber adjustment for double a-arm cars. Personally, I could deal with an Ingalls kit...

Mike

Crack Monkey

Mike - In any of your letters, have you included pictures and technical descriptions of systems like the Ingalls kit? Or just a rudimentary description?

KC

Hell, I'm a McStrut guy and I'd even support it. Works for me. But it'll be done when it comes out for member comment like Nate said).

THings have changed over the years with A-Arms, agreed. But then you got those guys in SP, who have been in SP for years, with the older adjustability.... now they get more adjustment. The only thing with that is... if they've been there for years, their alignment is probably already where they want it and it needs to be... through the years of working at it and making it work.

--KC

carl_aka_carlos

i call bullshit. it's bullshit. when macstrut guys run camber plates, the majority of those kits adjust for camber and caster. that's two very beneficial adjustments that they can make with ease.

if the SEB is so good at writing rules then they can word the ruling to the efffect of : "replacement upper control arms are allowed so long as they are only adjustable for camber and not adjustable along any other axis" there, problem solved everybody's happen, macstrut cars still have the advantage. these guys are obviously not engineers or else they would realize how far macstruts have come.

solo-x

the SEB's big concern is probably similar to what I had mentioned to mike out in MI. it's not the adjustability of camber they are worried about, rather the adjustability of camber curves, track, roll centers, and ultimately _weight_. (think all aluminum upper and lower c/a's that "adjust" camber, and just so happen to change the roll center, track and camber curves as well) as mike said to me, it'll only happen one year and then there will be some sort of clarification. if you can successfully dispel that concern for them, you'll make a big step towards getting the allowance approved. remember, you can't only think honda's here either. mac strut cars would also be able to change c/a's if it were a camber kit. imagine a neon that can be lowered 3" and still retain a decent camber curve and roll center height?? now were talking SM type suspension stuff, but as the current ST provision is written, this is allowed.

i support mike's proposal to the extent of only _one_ method of camber adjustment should be allowed on _any_ type of suspension and then some restriction so that someone doesn't figure out a way to alter the suspension geometry in a way that is a competitive advantage. i'm sure some smarter and more eloquent writer could devise a way to write this rule correctly. as one of my replies indicates, even ST may be loosing this allowance.

nate

carl_aka_carlos

Nate, how would you be able to change all of those suspension parameters by adjusting only the upper control arm? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to adjust the track, you'd have to use the lower control arms for that. to change the Roll center you'd need to totaly adjust the original geometry, which means different pick-up points.

I sent Andy a reply to HIS reply. They seem to be missing the point overall here. I cited him an example of the advantage MacStrut cars have, one that I witnessed personally. Hopefully if we keep the letters coming in something will happen.

solo-x

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by carl_aka_carlos &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nate, how would you be able to change all of those suspension parameters by adjusting only the upper control arm? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to adjust the track, you'd have to use the lower control arms for that. to change the Roll center you'd need to totaly adjust the original geometry, which means different pick-up points.

I sent Andy a reply to HIS reply. They seem to be missing the point overall here. I cited him an example of the advantage MacStrut cars have, one that I witnessed personally. Hopefully if we keep the letters coming in something will happen.</TD></TR></TABLE>

close. you have to read the current rule. all it states is that replacement control arms can be used to comensate for camber changes from lowering. it doesn't specifiy upper or lower, or even that you can only use one.

whether or not a suspension geometry parameter can be changed is irrelevant. all that has to happen is for the SEB to beleive that it could be done. and since the SEB likes to operate on the "slippery slope" theorem you have to be able to dispel this feeling.

nate

carl_aka_carlos

well, my feeling from the responses that I got from Andy and Mark is that they care that we have an issue and appreciate us letting them know, but otherwise they could care less.

RacerMike

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by carl_aka_carlos &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well, my feeling from the responses that I got from Andy and Mark is that they care that we have an issue and appreciate us letting them know, but otherwise they could care less.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly the feeling I got from them. Mark went as far as to tell me that perhaps I've chosen the wrong car Guess I'll just have to find someone to make me some offset bushings.

mike

Andy Hollis

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by carl_aka_carlos &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well, my feeling from the responses that I got from Andy and Mark is that they care that we have an issue and appreciate us letting them know, but otherwise they could care less.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Carl,

We do care. But there is a difference between caring and agreeing with you. We simply disagree. Your perspective is biased by your passion for a particular car and marque. The SEB has to write rules that work for all cars. As such, allowances that make total sense for one particular car may open up huge loopholes for other cars. That's why the rules tend to feel restrictive to everyone in one way or other. And its a different restriction for each car.

Cruise through the various on-line forums for the popular marques and you'll find folks unhappy with the autox rules for their car. Its inevitable.

On this specific issue, the Modacar web site that Mike forwarded is a great example of the wide range of items that are marketed as "Camber Kits". And yes, adjustable a-arms can be used to change all kinds of things in the suspension. You can alter the track, camber gain curves, bump and roll steer, roll centers, and yes, static camber. Its just too big of an allowance. Maybe not for an Integra, but the same rule must apply for all cars. Allow a-arm substition and just watch what I will do on my CSP Miata.

With respect to other forms of camber compensation that are currently disallowed, each that I am aware of has some loophole vice. Maybe not so egregious as the a-arms, but still there. And some of them step over the line with respect to permanent modification of other stock parts. Eccentric bolts with weld-on flange kits, for example. SP has been clear throughout its history that allowances should be bolt-on in nature.

If anything gets changed, it will likely be that the STS "camber kit" wording gets made more precise. We've already disallowed a couple of camber kits that performed other functions or violated other rules.

Hopefully this will help give some explanation.

--Andy

PS: I won't be back here in any sort of regular fashion so don't take it as indifference if I don't respond to additional commentary in this thread. I already spend way too much time on other lists and forums and can't do another.

PPS: Mike, the level of responsiveness and interaction you have received on this issue far exceeds that which we normally have time to give. Just as an FYI, we are now up over 500 letters from members that we have dealt with this year.

carl_aka_carlos

wow....at least we are being heard.

what i fail to understand is how you can write a rule, and tack something like "as long as it serves no other purpose than such and such" for everything from aftermarket shock allowances to seats. i dunno :shrugs:

solo-x

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by carl_aka_carlos &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">wow....at least we are being heard.

what i fail to understand is how you can write a rule, and tack something like "as long as it serves no other purpose than such and such" for everything from aftermarket shock allowances to seats. i dunno :shrugs:</TD></TR></TABLE>

it's a catch all. it gives a PC leverage when someone is pushing the limits of an allowance. for example, you relocate your battery. you are allowed to drill holes to route the cables, but the hole can serve no other purpose. now you are limited to drilling a hole only large enough to run the wire, not removing the rear bulkhead in the trunk or routing a differential cooler through the hole onto the diff in your camaro. a _lot_ of protests are built upon the "serve no other purpose" clause.

nate