Quote:
Originally Posted by Banannie
I've served on the STAC and am currently on the SAC.
In general, there will never be car-specific allowances in either Street or Street Touring. So a letter asking for one will promptly get a "TYFYI" reply. It's simply not the philosophy of either category as it takes "make it simple, make it fun" out of the equation. The rulesets are already way too complex 
So it really depends on what the question is. There's not really a "gray area" on this one, if the bolt holes are in a different spot they're illegal to the current rule. That leads to whether you / someone is asking for the rule to be changed. If someone was wanting to do that, it would be best to write what you'd think the rule should be, and WHY - why is it in the best interest of the general membership (not just 2022 twin owners) to change the rule THAT is why things get hard...
Does that help a little? |
Totally understand this perspective.
Knowing how things work on the committee, and the details of the RLCA problem for gen.2 cars, can
you suggest a wording that would be a good middle ground?
I think the rule that the distances between holes on a control arm should be the same as OEM is not "make it simple".
Who knows the correct OEM measurements and keeps track of what changed in which model year? Even the RLCA manufacturers that claim that their arms are STX legal don't keep track of that.
If anything, this puts people in the know at an advantage, as people not in the know will either just stay OEM out of abundance of caution, or install whatever arms they find, and will risk being disqualified later.
On top of that, it's tricky to precisely measure distances between two holes. Takes a minute even when the arm is in your hands, and gets a lot more tricky when the arm is installed on the car, and the car is not on a lift.
Is someone going to be disqualified if their car gets checked and the imprecise "in the paddock" measurement is 1 mm off OEM? 2 mm?
Is someone going to get away from disqualification if their arm was designed with the hole 1 mm off OEM just because the manufacturer didn't measure something correctly? Or it's a defective arm? How about 2 mm?
Is someone going to get away from disqualification if their arms were
intentionally designed to have the holes 1 mm off? 2 mm?
As an idea: could the wording be such that
disadvantageous relocation of holes is allowed? I get it that moving the hole for the spring/damper outboard (closer to the knuckle) changes the motion ratio and effectively makes the spring/damper stiffer; but moving the hole in the opposite direction should only be a disadvantage to anyone. As someone previously mentioned, changes to the effective spring rates shouldn't even matter in Street Touring classes where you can change springs and dampers, and non-OEM adjustable RLCAs aren't legal in the Street classes anyways. But maybe I'm missing something?
Can anybody suggest how could someone exploit it if moving any holes on an already-adjustable since control arm was allowed in any direction?
I get it that if multiple arms are "free to do whatever" then it's a Pandora box.
But if we're limited to changing only one arm anyways?..
Here's my idea.
Either:
- Document specific tolerances. E.g. +/- 2 mm is OK.
OR
- Allow moving any of the holes in the middle of a control arm for the control arm that's already legal for adjustments
OR
- Allow moving any of the holes in the middle of a control arm inboard for the control arm that's already legal for adjustments
Is anyone better versed at phrasing and politics willing to submit a format suggestion / proposal on my/our behalf?