101 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

My '01 couldn't get more than -3.2 in the LR and slightly less than that in RR when I bought it.   Dave wheeler checked rear subframe and told me it was bent.  Bought a used one from Jim D, Dave and his crew installed it and now with nice symmetrical L & R cam positions, I can set it at -3.5+ with more adjustment still available.  

oh I sold you one of those?     ( this is a joke)

[Michael Novak]

My '01 couldn't get more than -3.2 in the LR and slightly less than that in RR when I bought it.   Dave wheeler checked rear subframe and told me it was bent.  Bought a used one from Jim D, Dave and his crew installed it and now with nice symmetrical L & R cam positions, I can set it at -3.5+ with more adjustment still available.  My '95 same thing, can get all I want back there.  I don't know if I'm just "lucky" or if there are some cars around with bent stuff that's gone un-detected. 

I think you may be on to something, but there are a fair amount of new to race car builds that can't get there..

[EMatoy]

My 2003 that was a new build last winter could not get more than -3.1 on the left rear with the proper toe until parts were swapped.

I think a change for the rear is needed - for the same reasons as the front. It would put every car on a level playing field. Much easier and cheaper than finding the right set of parts to get your numbers.

[Tom Sager]

I think you may be on to something, but there are a fair amount of new to race car builds that can't get there..

No doubt there are production variances, but I also think there may be some drivers setting up cars or wanting more rear negative camber than is optimal.  Maybe this is the inspiration.

 

http://www.ultimatec...amber-Car-.html

[Tom Sager]

oh I sold you one of those?     ( this is a joke)

Yeah, must have come from your personal stash. 

[DrDomm]

this but to a stock control arm, but same idea

 

http://www.awrracing...arms-for-miata/

 

Ok, that's what I was imagining. 

[Steve Scheifler]

I am totally opposed to a rule change. The rules are clear. You cannot modify any suspension part. There is no ambiguity. I don't like limiting camber or ride height, it creates more problems. Swapping parts replacing bent ones to get camber is a part of the sport but we all know you cannot and should not modify them.

You will never make rules that stops people who want to cheat.

Frank, I can’t agree because I too have had trouble getting more than -3.2 rear camber on at least one side of two new builds that I did last winter and another for which I do setup.

I’ve bought used replacements and a new replacement, purchased Dave’s gauges and done numerous laser measurements on and off the cars to align front & rear subframes. One brand new part actually measures worse than one I thought might be bent and a rod can’t be passed smoothly between the lower arms slots on the new one because they don’t line up properly.

These are excellent and well built parts with tolerances that are perfectly adequate for their purpose, but we are trying to use them at the extremes of their designed ranges and that's where otherwise irrelevant differences become a problem. It is ridiculous to suggest that joe average budget racer should buy a bunch of parts new or used in the HOPE of achieving what someone else lucks into or has the resources to get.

None of this excuses what was done, just like numerous issues we’ve dealt with in the past. If anyone can afford to optimize within the rules it is probably Danny so no sympathy from me, but as before we shouldn’t let frustration and anger or a vague notion of rules creep cloud our judgement.

[Martinracing98]

I think the camber should be limited by rule, or the bushing should be allowed to get the camber drivers are looking. Scouring junkyards for the perfect parts leads to the same problems that kept some away from FV. The golden manifold was worth so much that people would sell a car and keep their manifold.

[Steve Scheifler]

Limiting camber and/or setting minimum ride heights is, has always been, and will always be a terrible idea for this class. I don’t have time now or the patience using a phone to list all the reasons and make a convincing argument but anyone with significant setup experience willing to fully think it through in the context of SM should come to the same conclusion. To start with consider the relative lack of precision possible even under well controlled conditions where you do setup now, the resources available to the average SM racer to have their setup done, our penchant for at-track adjustments to cross weight and rake, the tolerances we allow on most measurements (any tolerance simply redefines the limit for those with the best tools), and the range of conditions found in tech sheds where these rules would be enforced. In the end, it may appear to level the field near the front but the “haves” will definitely gain relative to the “have-nots” just as surely as cheating does.

[Mark]

I agree with Steve. Camber is difficult to measure accurately at a hostile environment like a race track. We get very little enforcement of the rules we have already at the average event so what is the point of creating yet more rules? If camber is the issue for some, and the desire is to allow everyone the same opportunity for camber, bushings are the way to go imo. If you want -4 degrees of camber have at it. I don't see the need myself but perhaps I'll give it a shot on a test day and find out. 

[Cnj]

Naïvely, I did not know people were doing anything to the rear control arms, or that there was variance in stock parts. I could be persuaded to support a rules change to allow an eccentric bushing, avoiding costly parts swapping and leveling the playing field.

Danny not only knew about the (apparent) competitive advantage, but was also in a position on the SMAC to recommend a change to the rules. But he chose to cheat. Sigh.

I like Danny. Perhaps it's the common accent, but he has always been extremely pleasant to me. He has the talent, dedication, time and finances to do incredibly well in this sport. The cost of his decision will be high, bringing into disrepute those who modified the car (as yet not identified), probably requiring Danny to resign his position on the SMAC (or being asked to leave by the CRB) and forcing him to keep a low profile for some time. Where Sammy continued to cheat after being caught multiple times (what's up with that?), I'm going to believe Danny will choose a different path.

A shout out to the tech shed for detailed inspections. They must be sending these cars back home in a dozen boxes.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

For the record, I’m not yet saying that given a vote I would be in favor of a rules change. I would want more information including honest input from people with a lot more NB experience than we have about the benefits of more than say 3 degrees. Before everything turned upside down our to do list for this season included a lot of testing of that type, which is why I spent a lot of time looking for more on our cars. Based just on my experience I am leaning towards favoring it because I would also like to have more flexibility in ride height (upwards) at some tracks without losing what camber I do get.

As for how to achieve it, that also would need some discussion. I think I would rather do something simple like slot or fill & drill the upper outer than deal with more bushings that require significant time, money, effort and ongoing maintenance. Or is there a simple cheap and proven fixed offset bushing available for the upper-outer?

[Tom Sager]

Dave Wheeler sells an industrial strength eccentric alignment bolt replacement kit.  I believe that one of the benefits of using those is a bit more adjustment range.  Maybe Dave can chime in on that. 

[Steve Scheifler]

The slots on the subframe define the limits. The pads on either side of the slot (against which the eccentric washer levers) also define a limit of a sort if nothing is modified but with the right excentric washer it is the same limit. The washers on the bolts that Dave sells (also available elsewhere if you search, but not cheaper) may fill the space between the pads a bit better and make it slightly easier to get all that the slot offers. We tried them, they are OK but I happen to prefer the Mazda part for several reasons.

[Ron Alan]

Frank, I can’t agree because I too have had trouble getting more than -3.2 rear camber on at least one side of two new builds that I did last winter and another for which I do setup.

I’ve bought used replacements and a new replacement, purchased Dave’s gauges and done numerous laser measurements on and off the cars to align front & rear subframes. One brand new part actually measures worse than one I thought might be bent and a rod can’t be passed smoothly between the lower arms slots on the new one because they don’t line up properly.

These are excellent and well built parts with tolerances that are perfectly adequate for their purpose, but we are trying to use them at the extremes of their designed ranges and that's where otherwise irrelevant differences become a problem. It is ridiculous to suggest that joe average budget racer should buy a bunch of parts new or used in the HOPE of achieving what someone else lucks into or has the resources to get.

None of this excuses what was done, just like numerous issues we’ve dealt with in the past. If anyone can afford to optimize within the rules it is probably Danny so no sympathy from me, but as before we shouldn’t let frustration and anger or a vague notion of rules creep cloud our judgement.

 

Limiting camber and/or setting minimum ride heights is, has always been, and will always be a terrible idea for this class. I don’t have time now or the patience using a phone to list all the reasons and make a convincing argument but anyone with significant setup experience willing to fully think it through in the context of SM should come to the same conclusion. To start with consider the relative lack of precision possible even under well controlled conditions where you do setup now, the resources available to the average SM racer to have their setup done, our penchant for at-track adjustments to cross weight and rake, the tolerances we allow on most measurements (any tolerance simply redefines the limit for those with the best tools), and the range of conditions found in tech sheds where these rules would be enforced. In the end, it may appear to level the field near the front but the “haves” will definitely gain relative to the “have-nots” just as surely as cheating does.

I've been lucky apparently and always had cars that rear camber was not an issue...but I have definitely seen what happens after contact(something bent) causes the need to pull an eccentric in to get toe which then creates an unsatisfactory camber number.

 

IMO...Steve is right on the money...limiting camber or ride height is a really BAD idea!! And not for any reason other than this...TECH!! 

We currently have a rule that most everyone is subject to every weekend...WEIGHT. And who checks this...TECH. And every weekend someone complains the scales are OFF...but because this has a simple work around...fast and easy to check your car every session if you like(after any adjustments you made at the first run through)for the most part it is your own dam fault if you are under weight!

 

Imagine Tech setting up and confirming your Camber adjustments are OK??? Would it be a Hunter alignment machine or a Harbor Freight digital level? If it takes 8 volunteers to grid cars how many would we have to feed to do this 

 

No doubt the history of rule changes in SM has often followed a hard to detect mod or an inexpensive solution to a problem that hurts no one and benefits all. Assuming it is clearly stated that track width remains the same and an offset bushing(or slotted arm with eccentric) has to be installed in a specific manor...the 10-15 percent(guessing) of cars that cant get to the Neg. camber they want will have a simple inexpensive solution. Personally I havn't had this issue but I would have no problem with a change to allow it. 

 

On a similar note...I think SCCA should allow either offset bushings OR the available extended lower ball joint(in the front)!!! Such an easier and less expensive solution!

[Ron Alan]

The slots on the subframe define the limits. The pads on either side of the slot (against which the eccentric washer levers) also define a limit of a sort if nothing is modified but with the right excentric washer it is the same limit. The washers on the bolts that Dave sells (also available elsewhere if you search, but not cheaper) may fill the space between the pads a bit better and make it slightly easier to get all that the slot offers. We tried them, they are OK but I happen to prefer the Mazda part for several reasons.

Part of the problem with Mazda eccentrics(several variations)is they can tend to get sloppy very quickly with constant adjustments...making it all that much more difficult for fine adjustments and having things remain where they were tightened! I used one set of Daves and remember thinking...these are nice...both sides turn together and no slop! But I did curse when I had to go buy 18mm wrenches(or are they 11/16's?)!

[dstevens]

Imagine Tech setting up and confirming your Camber adjustments are OK??? Would it be a Hunter alignment machine or a Harbor Freight digital level? If it takes 8 volunteers to grid cars how many would we have to feed to do this 

 

 

Camber and ride height are checked all the time in local circle track.  The tools are fairly easy to use and come in a variety of configurations.  It's not a great deal different than being able to use a scale or a Digitron.  

 

[ccambern]

I strongly agree that we should allow either an offset bushing or slotting of the upper control arm. The variation between cars is too great, and it's unreasonable to expect the average guy to have the time or resources to dig through a pile of junkyard parts until he finds a combination that gives enough adjustment. I've seen shop-built cars with a TON of rear camber and I've seen cars that could barely hit -3 deg.

 

Slotted arms are easy enough to find in tech, but I can think of several ways to increase rear camber that would be virtually undetectable. If your car happens to be one that can't hit optimal camber, you are at a disadvantage unless you are willing and able to either (1) do the parts dance or (2) intentionally modify something. Either option might be simple for a big shop, but not for a one-man band.

 

I also strongly agree that teching camber is a terrible idea. Whether from measurement error or actual movement, my camber changes by .1-.3 degrees every time I check it. I know camber is a tech item in other classes, but I'd really rather not go down that road with SM. Chasing variation in scales from track to track and day to day is bad enough. Let's not make it worse.

 

Just like we did in the front, we should give every car enough adjustment to go beyond optimal and call it a day. 

 

 

And while I agree with Danny's DQ, I do NOT agree that it was on par with an oversize restrictor or Sammy's shocks. At least to my eyes, Danny's rear camber was well within normal Spec Miata range. The method for achieving that camber might have been technically illegal, but it did not result in a performance advantage. It simply brought the car into the same adjustment range as everyone else.   

[Jim Drago]

Dave Wheeler sells an industrial strength eccentric alignment bolt replacement kit.  I believe that one of the benefits of using those is a bit more adjustment range.  Maybe Dave can chime in on that. 

Dave can't say his bolts get more camber than the factory eccentric bolt because that would make them non compliant and the next thing they start checking 

[ner88]

Sure, allow any amount of rear camber, then we can buy new improved rear bearing assemblies for $700...........

How about SSM rules, limit front to 2' and rear to 2.5', works for them!! and no special hubs needed.