235 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

You need those wheels with two valve stems so you can take measurements at the top and the bottom.

Ok, here's a better one for you. On a FaceBook page a millennial received a parking ticket for parking in a no parking zone. The sign said No Parking 3 AM to 6 AM. The millennial thought parking for any time period less than the posted 3 hours was legal.    Ya can't make that $hit up.

[Jim Drago]

Change the word CAMBER above with the words LOWER FUEL PRESSURE. How did that work out for everyone?

 

I'll sign your petition Kyle!

How about we just take away the front bushings and spec a max camber of 3.25 degrees.. Saves everyone lots of headaches.. lot less wear on components and the same for all and the least expensive and time consuming option. Not being able to measure accurately is a lame excuse

 

I am still opposed.

[Mike Collins]

I don't get it... The VAST (and I mean VAST) majority of SM drivers only come out to a couple of regional events a year (that may include a majors but only because its local to them).... The same 100 or so dumbasses that post here, race the majors and complain about parity are going to ruin what made this class successful.  There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to allow slotting the rear upper control arm. Its a shame that ONE driver chose to do this to his car, then cries foul that he could not get enough camber.  I call BS!  Give me the car and let me buy new straight parts and camber wont be an issue.  If someone can't get enough rear camber the car is bent, plain and simple...

 

If we keep changing the rules for cheats to be made legal the class is going to lose its base and attractiveness...

 

I don't post as much anymore because most of what gets talked about has been beaten to death by people who have zero f'n clue about what they are talking about and just want to be Internet Einstein's.  

[wheel]

This has been posted under What Do You Think in the final fastrack.

 

 

 

SM

1. #22900 (Jim Drago) Rear Camber/Upper Control Arms

The Club Racing Board is seeking feedback on the following idea.  Please submit your comments through crbscca.com.

 

Should the CRB recommend the change suggested below:

 

Add in 9.1.7.C.3, item t.: On the upper control arms, the original outer mounting holes may be slotted to obtain additional camber.  The max slot size shall not exceed 0.433" X 0.600".  No material shall be added.

[Danica Davison]

We are too busy eating avocados and reading poorly written millennial hit-piece articles to be on the SMAC

 

Also, as a millennial, I am mostly confused on which side I should grab the pitchforks for and stand (or kneel) in protest. 

[Alex Piku]

Ok, here's a better one for you. On a FaceBook page a millennial received a parking ticket for parking in a no parking zone. The sign said No Parking 3 AM to 6 AM. The millennial thought parking for any time period less than the posted 3 hours was legal.    Ya can't make that $hit up.

 

Or how about the classic senile baby boomer, whose grasp of technology is so lacking he can't even quote the right forum post when bashing millennials?! Ehl Oh Ehllllll

[Danica Davison]

Or how about the classic senile baby boomer, whose grasp of technology is so lacking he can't even quote the right forum post when bashing millennials?! Ehl Oh Ehllllll

 

 

[High Chair]

I don't get it... The VAST (and I mean VAST) majority of SM drivers only come out to a couple of regional events a year (that may include a majors but only because its local to them).... The same 100 or so dumbasses that post here, race the majors and complain about parity are going to ruin what made this class successful.  There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to allow slotting the rear upper control arm. Its a shame that ONE driver chose to do this to his car, then cries foul that he could not get enough camber.  I call BS!  Give me the car and let me buy new straight parts and camber wont be an issue.  If someone can't get enough rear camber the car is bent, plain and simple...

 

If we keep changing the rules for cheats to be made legal the class is going to lose its base and attractiveness...

 

I don't post as much anymore because most of what gets talked about has been beaten to death by people who have zero f'n clue about what they are talking about and just want to be Internet Einstein's.   

Well.... That's a fair statement right there.

[Ron Alan]

[davew]

Our Suspension Jigs are now available on the website for pre-order and there is a video on youtube.  An easy way to make sure all your components aren't bent.

 

https://youtu.be/V8894BzIpYs

 

https://www.advanced...jigs-deluxe-kit

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Our Suspension Jigs are now available on the website for pre-order and there is a video on youtube.  An easy way to make sure all your components aren't bent.

 

https://youtu.be/V8894BzIpYs

 

https://www.advanced...jigs-deluxe-kit

 

I only see one real problem with these things, it is inevitable that some of these pieces will get bent either in shipping or dropped and may get slightly bent compromising their integrity.  

 

Nice Video explanation though!

[Tom Sager]

I don't get it... The VAST (and I mean VAST) majority of SM drivers only come out to a couple of regional events a year (that may include a majors but only because its local to them).... The same 100 or so dumbasses that post here, race the majors and complain about parity are going to ruin what made this class successful.  There is ABSOLUTELY no reason to allow slotting the rear upper control arm. Its a shame that ONE driver chose to do this to his car, then cries foul that he could not get enough camber.  I call BS!  Give me the car and let me buy new straight parts and camber wont be an issue.  If someone can't get enough rear camber the car is bent, plain and simple...

 

If we keep changing the rules for cheats to be made legal the class is going to lose its base and attractiveness...

 

I don't post as much anymore because most of what gets talked about has been beaten to death by people who have zero f'n clue about what they are talking about and just want to be Internet Einstein's.  

 

That's a pretty good rant.  You should run for office .

 

I don't see any downside to approving it.  It's not a big deal IMO.  Doubt it ruins the class in any way.  If extreme amounts of rear camber (more than say -3.5) is advantageous, people are going to have it with or without the rule. They'll pry, bend and tweak as needed to get there and it'll get through tech. 

 

I'm in the camp that we don't need the rule change but not opposed to it if it happens. 

[Tom Sager]

I only see one real problem with these things, it is inevitable that some of these pieces will get bent either in shipping or dropped and may get slightly bent compromising their integrity.  

 

Nice Video explanation though!

Yeah but if you happen to bend the measuring tool you can check it with a straight part, right? 

[Steve Scheifler]

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.


 

[Bench Racer]

Without looking at the video when the voice came on, I thought holly crap, we've got Crazy Mike King of the Miata's.

 

Great video and presentation.

 

Handle the fixtures like you'd handle your precision tools. If forcing the part into fixture is required, bent OEM part, STOP.

 

Of course, that's the opinion of a pre baby boomer.             

[Bench Racer]

Put a maximum number on negative camber just like there is a maximum track width number and call it quits. Let's stop the goofy bullshit (changing rules because of cheating).  

This rules slide because of CHEATING was the down slide of the production class until Restricted Prep entered the game in approximately 1997, when millennials were someplace between kinder garden college.

 

Wash, rinse and repeat, same $ame $hit different class.

[Tom Sager]

Our Suspension Jigs are now available on the website for pre-order and there is a video on youtube.  An easy way to make sure all your components aren't bent.

 

https://youtu.be/V8894BzIpYs

 

https://www.advanced...jigs-deluxe-kit

 

Very nice, you'll sell a few of those.  Might be the most borrowed tool in the paddock. 

 

You should install a set in a kiosk with a credit card scanner and bring that to the track.  $9.99 for 10 minutes. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Yeah but if you happen to bend the measuring tool you can check it with a straight part, right? 

 

Yep and then maybe throw the jig away as it will never be 100% reliable  again. bending it back yourself may get it close but not to the tollerances they would be made with coming off the cnc machine probably just my opinion.

 

Also could end in a dq of a perfectly legit part if one tech guy bent it slightly and never told anyone.  

[LarryKing]

I'm glad Mr. Scheifler doesn't want to argue this to death. I can't imagine the word count for that.

[Steve Scheifler]

I’m sorry if reading is such a strain, perhaps you would be happier on twitter. Oh wait, didn’t they just double the max word count? Perhaps something with more pictures.