I don't want to be seen as arguing this to death and repeating myself countless times so I hope to make this lengthy post my last other than responding to what I believe to be factually incorrect or highly misleading statements. But don't count on it. So at the considerable risk of exposing myself as a clueless internet Einstein...
As I stated during the original discussion under a different topic, I was not firmly for or against the idea, in part because I needed to spend more time with our cars checking camber limits vs ride height. If it appears that I have been a strong proponent it is probably because so far the arguments against have been so weak that I can't help trying to shoot holes in them and at the same time wonder what unstated reasons might actually exist behind them. More on that later.
For me the arguments in favor are mostly simple and compelling, and given the cost/benefit ratio, positively obvious. Unless there are some not-so-obvious factors being missed. Unintended and unforeseen consequences have turned a lot of best intentions to total shit, so we need to look carefully even when something seems simple.
What I don't buy at all is the comparison to other have vs have-not issues such a tire costs, better radiators, whatever, or giving the low-budget guys an artificial advantage so they can compete. Even bringing that kind of crap up makes it tempting to dismiss you as either not knowing what you are talking about, not caring, or grasping for convenient arguments rather than stating your true objections. More bluntly, it stinks of arrogance, elitism and/or ignorance. I would certainly hope that if the CRB could magically eliminate every advantage that deep pockets have over the low budget racer, at little or no cost to anyone, they would do it immediately. That is, after all, the ultimate if unobtainable goal of the class.
And speaking of which, to those who actually try to use the original intent of the class as an argument against this proposal, WTF are you talking about?? The point of this class is to offer the levelest possible playing field at the lowest possible cost, in part by minimizing R&D and creative engineering. Even if there were no other arguments in favor of this, and there are many, that goal alone is compelling reason to consider the change. It's cheaper even than the adjustable spark timing, and a damn site cheaper and easier than the adjustable fuel pressure. Why start with a Mazda and not a Porsche? Why spec a bunch of less than optimal parts, spec tires, minimum wheel weights, and limited engine mods? Add to those the countless more difficult and more expensive changes over the years. They are all in one way or another to decrease the gap between the haves and the have-nots, whether in terms of budget, knowledge, or the willingness to stretch the rules. To suggest that allowing this change is somehow contrary to the philosophy of the class is at very best absurd.
I won't rehash all the arguments for the change, they have been covered multiple times here and in the original topic, and well summarized by Rich Powers. But I do want to look more closely at some of the potentially credible arguments against.
Safety: It has, inevitably, been implied that if your car has been damaged in a way that reduces you max camber then you are obliged to swap parts until you find the culprit, if for no other reason than safety. At first blush that may sound reasonable to someone without a lot of knowledge or experience in the subject but it just doesn't hold up very well to scrutiny. A lot of these cars have been hit hard and fixed in one way or another, if not as a race car then when they were on the street. Few will ever know if their cars were previously stretched on a frame rack or even had an entire corner replaced, or worse. A bent part is not necessarily a dangerous part and it would be dishonest to imply otherwise. We are each responsible for ensuring that our cars are safe and that we replace parts as needed to keep them that way. How many of you will stop in the middle of a race or give up the rest of the weekend just because contact has tweaked something that you can't replace immediately? If we are still in contention we keep racing unless it becomes obviously unsafe, and we pull, hammer, and pry things back into position so we can get out there the next session, leaving careful inspection to later. And we're damn proud of it when we succeed. We do want to be as safe as reasonably possible but a rear sub-frame pushed in by 1/4 inch in not a threat to anyone.
Increased stress on other parts: I don't think so. If anything more likely the opposite because it keeps us from going even deeper into the bumpstops to achieve the desired camber, and bottoming the stops hard is one of the candidates for contributing to other failures. In any case, we're talking very small changes in loads at best. Pending a more convincing theory I give this argument no weight at all and suspect that just the opposite is more likely.
Rules Creep: I understand this in theory, but for reasons stated above I think that this recommendation is, at least on the surface, consistent with the class philosophy. Emphasis on surface.
Unintended consequences: I'll use front camber as an example. Although I am less than thrilled with the specifics of the available pieces for adjustable upper-inner front control arm bushings, I was in favor of a rule to provide more camber for many of the same reasons being discussed here. But, I can tell you that there are still people running bent spindles AND the new bushings, and not just because they didn't feel like replacing their spindles. Why? Because some people like to experiment with more camber than they can get without them at a particular ride height, or just more camber period. I can't get 4 degrees on some fronts at any reasonable height and that isn't an unheard of amount even if there is some cost under braking. It is very important to keep in mind that as you lower a car there are significant negative consequences that can't be corrected without other modifications. Sure, there are benefits of going lower than stock but at some point they are overshadowed by serious disadvantages. If you need to have them listed then you won't understand the suspension geometry issues, but you certainly know that you don't want to get too deep into the bumpstops.
Sebring is an example of a place where someone might benefit from keeping the bent spindles and/or slotting the rear uppers. Because it is notoriously bumpy many people raise their car up a bit to keep from bottoming the bumpstops and skipping off the track or into a wall. But of course that can limit the maximum camber available to less than they would otherwise run. So, I think the point is that even with the front bushings we are not at a point where people can easily get more than they want or need and that has already lead some to venture over the line again even on the fronts.
Even aside from specific tracks like Sebring, people have been experimenting with more camber than is commonly thought of as "enough" and may or may not be getting real net benefit from it. I think THAT may be what's behind some of pushback to this proposal from the bigger teams and faster guys. It has been touched on more than once in these discussions but not really spelled out clearly. They know that today they are at the front and if the current rules are enforced and other cheats are found and stopped, they will stay there. Not because they have an advantage now, and not because they fear the little guy will suddenly come up and challenge them. Most of them are justifiably confident that they can run at the front of a perfectly level field, so I'm not trying to imply that they in any way are trying to keep others down. They are not. But what does make sense to me is that they really do not want to find themselves in a situation where they need to spend a lot of time and money experimenting with more combinations of height and camber to ensure that they aren't giving an advantage to others who will absolutely be doing just that. Perhaps we shouldn't have any more sympathy for them on that than they seem to have for the little guy who needs to spend a lot of time and money replacing parts in the hope that it will solve his camber problem, but it is a very legitimate concern for unintended consequences. And frankly, if after all that the guy with a slightly compromised subframe can't attain the new ideal camber and height combination, what have we gained? If that's not the argument being presented against the recommendation then it probably should be because the rest varies from flat to just plain lame.
So the REAL answer may very well be to give us the extended front ball joints that sadly came out a little too late for us but are allowed by NASA and surely have had adequate testing now, and give us a long enough slot in the rear to get at least 4 degrees at a higher than normal ride height. That should achieve the goal of more than enough for everybody. Of course we will still have to deal with the possible issues of more testing to find the sweet spot at any given track and that isn't particularly consistent with the philosophy of the class, for those who still want to argue that angle more convincingly. And we may even find that "fastest" is not the same as what looks best when checking tire temps or wear rates, so reduced tire life may prove to be another consequence. But since the fast guys run them only a few sessions anyway I think that's less likely.