Quote:
Originally Posted by Turkish
They also stipulate routinely through the rules that you cannot change suspension geometry. So I was trying to see if that would be considered changing the suspension geometry.
|
The philosophy isn't stated, but I'd agree that the STAC is not looking to allow changes to suspension geometry, but without the end of the camber allowance stating in part 5 the only change to "suspension geometry" should be incidental to the length of the arm. If that arm allows relocation of the actual shock mount, well you're now into shock allowances and comes back to what I was talking about in the first post...
"Does anything else in the rear of the car need to be modified to use your part?"
Method of attachment of the shock changing counts as "modified" in my book. Shock allowances talk about no change in geometry as well.
SP went into swaybar allowances, but endlink attachment isn't going to get a change in geometry and is free anyway, but is a good avenue to be diligent about.
The one thing to point out though is Bushings are very free, including doing offset bushings. offset bushings change *everything* on the e36. There's no global stipulation on suspension geometry that limits this. The limitation would have to exist within the section on bushings. Just so happens that the Camber allowance and shock allowance specifies to not mess with geometry.
If I were fabricating a camber arm that my shock attaches to, you set it for stock, and then you create the length adjustment in a helpful way (inboard or outboard) for that shock mounting, and it's then incidental to the length. If you create adjustable locations for shock mounting, now you've gone too far.
The one thing this arm creates is uncertainty. You may have it in the stock geometry location, but you *could've* had it in the wrong spot. Might invite protests from the thinner skinned folk. And the devious might use the adjustment to cheat then rest before impound. I wonder if that would lead committees onsite to ever lean on the "guilty til proven innocent" judgement... If I were trying to make sure all interpretations were to the letter, I'd plug the attachments out of stock geomtery to prove i couldn't have cheated. you might be asked to prove that the geometry stayed stock too. That's be some more "not fun".
(que talk of how it's not fair to have an aftermarket part disallowed that's readily available
)