235 replies to this topic

[38bfast]

Just for refferance. If you wheel has made contact with something, anouter car or maybe a wall or nasty slide sideway in the grass or pea,gravel something just got bent. Most times you can get the setup back with the cams. If it’s a hard enough hit no but the light ones yes. But if we want to check parts in tech to very close tolerances there is going to be a lot of failed parts. Most are not changing out parts if they can still get their numbers or their numbers get better.

Oh and no one has brought up old vs new bushings or bent lower outer long bolt in the rear. It all plays into the numbers. The lower long bolt can cause you to loose camber but clock it correctly and you can gain a bunch.

[Ron Alan]

^^^With regard to the long rear lower bolt...you are lucky if it bends equally so it only affects camber!  Usually the gain in camber potential is negated by the 3/4" of +/- toe! 

 

Jim C...as Ralph has pointed out...there are way more slightly bent arms and spindles/uprights out there then we all care to admit. Most of those slight tweaks are not the intentional types and rarely affect the car in a positive way. But with the front off-set bushings...we have a tool to keep cars in acceptable set-ups temporarily or permanently if we choose. This current proposal allows this same option for the rear of the car. 

 

At present, measurable numbers created by setup are open with one exception...track width! Unless the rules are amended to define what constitutes an illegal bend on each specific part I see no reason tech would waste everyone's time? Exceptions to this(what IS currently defined) being correct parts, correct parts for a specific year, additional welds, etc. IMO...bent parts would have to be clearly defined before tools such as Dave's would be used. This way the "average" SM racer could check or pay someone to check...but IMO I see no reason for this with an open camber rule.

[Bench Racer]

And if WE had a maximum negative camber specified we wouldn't have a need to worry about legal or illegal bends and bull$hit. Naw, David, why do you talk that way, it's way to simple for everyone to be legal, after all it is Spec Cheat Miata. 

[Tom Sager]

And if WE had a maximum negative camber specified we wouldn't have a need to worry about legal or illegal bends and bull$hit. Naw, David, why do you talk that way, it's way to simple for everyone to be legal, after all it is Spec Cheat Miata. 

I'd be all for a max camber rule if there was a way to eliminate measurement differences between my home field alignment shop and all of the various at track measurements.  As previously posted I've lived through this in the past where tech had to enforce a camber rule across a large field of cars none of which were aligned before the event using the same tools by the same people.  It was a huge PITA. Eventually the rule was scrapped.

 

I just don't see SCCA or NASA adopting a rule like this for our class if for no other reason than it stretches the mostly volunteer workforce even thinner.  Heck in SCCA we can't even get some basic enforcement of on-track contact rules.  Not much chance for a camber rule IMO. 

[38bfast]

And if WE had a maximum negative camber specified we wouldn't have a need to worry about legal or illegal bends and bull$hit. Naw, David, why do you talk that way, it's way to simple for everyone to be legal, after all it is Spec Cheat Miata.

So,in your world what would max camber be?

[Bench Racer]

So,in your world what would max camber be?

In my world, I'd ask the SMAC to measure and make a decision the same as they did when they SMAC implemented the maximum track width, of course measuring cars with legal OEM parts. I'd take a WAG from my limited experience the maximum negative camber would be less than 3 degree. I personally don't care what number the SMAC came up with, we'd all be driving cars with the same camber.

[Bench Racer]

Tom , sorry, I didn't see your post. I hear you with it didn't work in the past and no one pays attention to the on track contact rule. The on track contact rule is simple if a driver feels he's been wronged by another driver, have a conversation with said driver and if conversation doesn't stick it's called grow a set and pen some paper. Camaraderie is great to a point. We can look back over the years and there's been times when camaraderie has been tossed to the wind and $hit happened. 

 

We know SCCA tools take precedent over our tools, correct. A tad on ingenious thought could overcome having to have a full blown scale set-up to check camber.

[Steve Scheifler]

Isn't a maximum negative camber rule really a minimum camber rule?

 

Talk about beating something to death.  This has been discussed countless times and it's still one of the worst rule suggestions ever for the same reasons stated every other time, and others that probably weren't.  But I'll play along. You win, let's set a limit.  Make it -5 degrees and provide a list of approved ways to achieve it.  Done.

[Bench Racer]

I'll also play along.

Isn't a maximum negative camber rule really a minimum camber rule?

 

Talk about beating something to death.  This has been discussed countless times and it's still one of the worst rule suggestions ever for the same reasons stated every other time, and others that probably weren't.  But I'll play along. You win, let's set a limit.  Make it -5 degrees and provide a list of approved ways to achieve it.  Done.

If there is zero negative camber, that would be a minimum. If a rule was 3* negative camber that would be a positive negative camber, there for a maximum negative camber per rule.

 

With your 5* negative camber the cheating would continue to get to Steve S. 5* weather 5* did any good or not. If with legal OEM parts the max negative camber which could be gained is 3*, I personal wouldn't give a crap if someone smacked the car around and bent the living $hit out of sub-frame, arms and whatever else and if they cheated to get back to negative 3* camber. 

[Steve Scheifler]

I believe that the CRB meets again one week from tomorrow. If you want them to consider your opinion about the proposed rule change you should send it in soon. Don’t assume that others who agree with you have it covered, take a minute and be heard, level of intetest either way counts.

[mhiggins10]

I believe that the CRB meets again one week from tomorrow. If you want them to consider your opinion about the proposed rule change you should send it in soon. Don’t assume that others who agree with you have it covered, take a minute and be heard, level of intetest either way counts.

Submitted- thanks for the reminder, Steve.

[Tom Hampton]

They should implement online polls with real-time results so we can see the sway...and whether we need to bother piling-on/fighting back.  Maybe we could vote via twitter!  #cheatedupUCA <sarcasm>

[Erik Hardy]

If there is zero negative camber, that would be a minimum. If a rule was 3* negative camber that would be a positive negative camber, there for a maximum negative camber per rule.

 

Positive-negative camber!!!!                 

 

https://forum.bodybu...php?t=107926751

[William Keeling]

I don't get the Jim Jones reference (as it relates to shocks)

you have not drunk the kool-aid

[Steve Scheifler]

Not as easy to find on their site as it should be:

https://www.crbscca.com/

[Steve Scheifler]

Bump

 

Last chance...

 

Not as easy to find on their site as it should be:

https://www.crbscca.com/