Clarification for suspension changes in ST2

[eclip5e]

touche

[ryanthieme]

As I see it there are 3 options. 1) You just have to suck it up and run in the next group up where the modification is legal and request a rule modification next off-season; 2) Run the year without the mod and request a rule modification next off-season; 3) Run the year with the mod in the wrong class and risk being protested and request a rule modification next off-season.

Option 4: Run the control arms, get protested, and then successfully argue the intent of the rule.

It could be that I don't have enough experience with the protest process, but does the process actually leave room for intent? Isn't intent subjective?

My thought is that the person making the ruling must go only with what is explicitly written in the rulebook when they make the decision.

FWIW I don't actually have a dog in this fight.

[cuda6666]

Excuse me for being a born again noob with a bad memory, but I think this situation points out a weakness in our approach to rule making. Please remind me why we list permitted modifications and consider illegal anything that is not explicitly listed. It would be so much simpler if we listed illegal mods and gave competitors free reign outside those specific constraints. For example, the way the rules are now, I could successfully protest someone for using header wrap. How dumb is that?

[ryanthieme]

Excuse me for being a born again noob with a bad memory, but I think this situation points out a weakness in our approach to rule making. Please remind me why we list permitted modifications and consider illegal anything that is not explicitly listed. It would be so much simpler if we listed illegal mods and gave competitors free reign outside those specific constraints. For example, the way the rules are now, I could successfully protest someone for using header wrap. How dumb is that?

I'll have to defer that question to someone with a lot more experience with the rule book process. but if I had to take a stab at the answer, I'd say it's probably a case of '6 in 1, 1/2 dozen in the other'. From my standpoint, I'd rather be told what I can do and know if it wasn't listed, I can't do it.

Which brings me to this slight thread hijack.

One of the winter modifications I purchased is the Randall cowl intake for my 2003 Miata. I knew that a cold air intake was legal for ST3, where my car is currently classed, however this discussion has me questioning the purchase.

The Randall intake requires some cutting of the firewall in order to install. A search of the rule book finds very little about any cutting of the firewall.

So maybe I do have a dog here and will have to come up with a different solution depending on the verdict.

[zip4zat]

G. Camber/caster plates or eccentric bushings/bearings for the
purpose of adjusting camber/caster are allowed provided that the stock
suspension mounting points are retained and not modified. No
modifications to the stock strut towers are allowed.

It seems to me that in Ron's case I dont believe adjustable lateral links can be included in ST. Only Camber/caster plates or eccentric bushings/bearings are allowed for the purposes of those adjustments. Invariably this wil affect toe but as a consequence of camber/castor. Since the car already has toe adjustability there I dont see the point of using these. Now, using these to get you more camber (and increase track width), thats where it gets questionable.

For items not allowed to be modified from the stock production configuration,
it shall be the responsibility of the competitor to prove the stock
configuration by providing a factory shop manual of the competing vehicle's
model and year...

Appologies for not knowing you ryanthieme, but I think in your case the situation is explained here (maybe not so directly). From the ST rules, you have to prove the stock cofiguration of the car 'as delivered' for those modifications NOT allowed in the following ST sections. Cutting the firewall is not as delivered.

Maybe some of the Miata folks might chime in, as Ive never seen this part nor understand how its installed. I guess Im just going by how you've described it.

[WillM]

[QUOTE='cuda6666']
I think the problem is that the rule book states that only modifications that are specifically called out are allowed. Sometimes the rulemakers (us), when writing a rule that's based on a concept (allowing camber adjustment), don't include every possible method of achieving the allowed effect. In this case, camber plates and asymetrical bushings are mentioned, but adjustable control arms are not. I'd be willing to bet that whoever wrote that rule did not specifically intend to outlaw adjustable control arms. I guess it comes down to how inflexible we want to be in the face of logic.[/QUOTE]

Adjustable control arms are legal, just not in ST! The line between classes has to be drawn at some point. Changing out control arms has other benefits, not just camber control/adjustment. That is the pitfall of "unintended consequences", which has become a buzz-word in other clubs.

Different control arms could have a profound effect on a car's suspension. While you may be using them to get a bit more camber, others could use them to lower sprung weight (tubular or aluminum arms), increase track, lower CG, etc.

[cuda6666]

OK, OK. I don't have a dog in this fight either. I can get -1.75 degrees of rear camber just by lowering my ride height. And any Subaru can get more by replacing the stock control arm bolts with eccentric ones. My point is that I can't figure out (or remember) how we as a club arrived at the conclusion that it makes sense to declare what's legal, and outlaw everything else. It's not "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" in this case. The path the club has chosen puts us in the position of having to list every possible way to achieve a desired legal result. This adjustable control arm question is a perfect example. If the rules were written from the perspective of declaring what's illegal, we could simple say what we really mean. That is "modification of suspension pickup points is illegal." Done! No wrangling about the "intent of the rule." Like I said, under the current system I could protest someone for using header wrap simply because installation of header wrap (which could be argued to have a performance benefit) is not specifically called out as a permitted modification.

I'm aware that the proper venue for this discussion is during the rules deliberations next November. The adjustable control arm controversy is just such a perfect example of what I see as a rules system devoid of logic that I just couldn't shut up.

Of course what will happen next is that some old timer will come forward to remind me that I once voted in favor of the current system


_____________________
Subaru Legacy GT #716
Plymouth Baracuda #67

"Track time is my enemy."

[eclip5e]

It seems to me that in Ron's case I dont believe adjustable lateral links can be included in ST. Only Camber/caster plates or eccentric bushings/bearings are allowed for the purposes of those adjustments. Invariably this wil affect toe but as a consequence of camber/castor. Since the car already has toe adjustability there I dont see the point of using these. Now, using these to get you more camber (and increase track width), thats where it gets questionable.

Increase of track width is a good point. I think i'll stay on the safe side and try to see what i can do with the bolts and camber plates.

[eclip5e]

Adjustable control arms are legal, just not in ST! The line between classes has to be drawn at some point. Changing out control arms has other benefits, not just camber control/adjustment. That is the pitfall of "unintended consequences", which has become a buzz-word in other clubs.

Different control arms could have a profound effect on a car's suspension. While you may be using them to get a bit more camber, others could use them to lower sprung weight (tubular or aluminum arms), increase track, lower CG, etc.

Good point on the control arms.

[mossaidis]

X) Camber adjustment devices (plates/shims/eccentric, etc.) are unrestricted but are limited to one
per wheel. Front and rear upper control arms may be modified or replaced with items that allow
camber and/or caster adjustment only.

[jlwhorf]

could use them to lower sprung weight (tubular or aluminum arms)

According to stock car chassis guru Duke Southard, All components that attach the unsprung weight (wheels, spindles, etc) to the chassis are 50/50 sprung/unsprung weight (control arms, shocks, etc). Reduction of unsprung weight has 10 to ratio (i.e. removing 10 lbs of unsprung weight will effect handling characteristics of removing 100 lbs of sprung weight) and the 50/50 has a 5 to 1 ratio (i.e. removing 10 lbs of 50/50 effect handling characteristics of removing 50 lbs of sprung weight).

Jonathan
900 Monte Carlo PA

[HerbD]

Excuse me for being a born again noob with a bad memory, but I think this situation points out a weakness in our approach to rule making. Please remind me why we list permitted modifications and consider illegal anything that is not explicitly listed. It would be so much simpler if we listed illegal mods and gave competitors free reign outside those specific constraints. For example, the way the rules are now, I could successfully protest someone for using header wrap. How dumb is that?

I'll have to defer that question to someone with a lot more experience with the rule book process. but if I had to take a stab at the answer, I'd say it's probably a case of '6 in 1, 1/2 dozen in the other'. From my standpoint, I'd rather be told what I can do and know if it wasn't listed, I can't do it.

It it MUCH easier to list and verify what is permitted than list what
is illegal. When you spend a few years listening to the things that
people come up with and how they justify them, you could never
cover all the crazy stuff that people think of.

It's way worse because every car is different. A performance mod
that gives the car a huge performance boost might be trivial on one
car and very difficult (and expensive) on another car. By being
explicit about what is permitted, it levels the playing field by
keeping the list of permissible mods to a known quantity.

Since everyone has an opinion, I'll don my Rules Chair hat and add
mine: The suspension changes described in this thread are not
legal, because they are not permitted by the rules as written.

While it might seem in keeping with the spirit of the rules that this
mod would be the same as a camber plate, it's not clear to me that
allowing this mod for this car, when the same kind of mod is not
commonly available to other cars in the class, would be allowed,
and it should be submitted as a rules change proposal for next year
and go through the full debate process.

[eclip5e]

Thanks all for the solid advice.

my camber plates are in shipping right now and not the lateral links.

[Flatout Motorsports]

I serve on the IT Advisory Board and Spec Miata Advisory board currently for the SCCA and would be happy to chat offline with anyone who would like some advise.

The 'if it doesn't say you can, then you can't' method is always the best as Herb states. If you are going to tell me only what I can't do, then your rules package will either be the size of 'War and Peace' or you will unwillingly allow me to build a class killer, then outlaw it, then I will do it again, then you will outlaw it...and that will happen every year while I stay one step ahead of you.

To me, the rules clearly state what mods you can do in terms of camber adjustment/modification to get said adjustment. Those lateral links are not legal in that class IMHO. Maybe the IIDSYCTYC needs to be outlined in the class philosophy, just like it is in the SCCA's GCR.

[mossaidis]

I know COM is different and COM ST classes are meant to be for streetable class, but I think it funny that were is no mention of shims in rules and that I am able to do more suspension mods if I autocross in SCCA ST class than COM ST.