Jump to content

2005 rules - frame notching


swhiteh3

Recommended Posts

I understand your concerns for pissing away money, but that is a fact of racing and we all have to choose how much we are willing to spend

 

This type of statement is very disturbing to me. This is not what club racing is about. That sounds like a pro series.

Mark L. makes some very good points.

Does anyone really believe that an unlimited, modified and sorted solid axle is equal to an umlimited, modified and sorted IRS? That is insane. Marks points about limitations and compromises are right on.

 

Dave, i am sorry to hear that you are so disturbed. There is always going to be some one that will spend more money than you. It may not be on the car, it may come in the form of 2 sets of new tires per weekend, or private instructor training or running open track sessions every weekend, a rolling shop with spare engines and cars to paying a race shop to setup and maintain the car. When there is money there is always going to be some advantage. This is true in pro racing and this is true in amature racing. A quick reference to American Sedan racing will show you a huge variation in the money spent on amature racing. some people show up to the runoffs with 5 Rebello built motors at 12k each, and some show up with 1.5k junkyard motors and no spares. There is no rule about spending money.

 

Your point about unlimited axles and IRS are off the mark becuase i have never advocated unlimited mods. I have urged for limited mods and in reality i have pushed for an off the shelf IRS system to be legal, as a system (the KB system to be specific). If you think that I support unlimited mods for both solid axles or IRS you are mistaken. No one here has pushed for unlimited anything, IRS or solid axle.

 

I do know that the solid alxe cars running presently have not pushed the envelope for speed and design.

 

Luna, you obviously don't see it. I won't try to convey my points to you any longer as you have been missing them for 5 pages now. Good luck with your future endevours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mwilson7

    26

  • onralz

    24

  • RichardC

    11

No matter how much anyone wants to deny it we are all pissing away money. The difference is that in club racing we get a little plaque in return. In Pro racing you gave a chance to get a little cash back. If you don't believe you are going to be spending between $500-$1000 per weekend you are unfortunately mistaken.

 

I guess the other want to look at this is that if someone thinks an unlimited, modified and sorted solid axle is equal to a stick IRS then they are crazy. Who REALLY believes that two AI cars prepared the same (except one is stock IRS and the other is unlimited, modified and sorted solid axle ) would be competitive with each other? I really want to know and I'd like proof to back it up.

 

What people seem to be forgetting is this. First off I don't believe that ANYONE has taken full advantage of all the modifications that are allowed to the solid axle. When they do I'll be VERY interested to see what happens. Go talk to Hoerr racing about what can be done with a solid axle within the rules and you might be very surprised! If they don't come up with something really trick then you are talking to the wrong people. Guess what....it will also cost you $10k to build! Secondly all AI cars still have to meet the same hp/tq to weight ratio, tire rules, etc. Suspension is only one piece of the pie. Thirdly, why does it cost more to modify an IRS vs a stick axle? I've built a full Griggs car and I've built a full KB car and you know what. I actually think the IRS was a little cheaper AND definitely easier to install. What is the problem with that?Lastly we have proven at BR that even a stock K-member'ed (?) car can be competitive against Griggs, Maximum, and KB. Should we just go back to stock OEM factory front K-members only? Although we won Saturdays race (and those that were there know why we won) you forget to mention that our best lap time on Sunday was almost 1.5 seconds slower than the winnering car which had a stock Factory EOM front K-member, no coil overs and stock front control arms. That's 1.5 seconds on a 1:03 lap which is HUGE! Let me guess....we were sandbagging again......

 

I'm not saying we should allow unlimited custom built from the ground up IRS's but there has to be some room for the aftermarket and innovation. I've posted some proposed rules at least 3 times and haven't received any feedback so what's the point of the discussion here?

 

I can't wait to see what happens when someone builds a serious stick axle car that makes all of the aftermarket stick axle cars obsolete. What is everyone going to say then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are missing the point. Most people involved at this level and in this series don't want to spend 10K on a rear suspension, and probably never will, regaurdless of what others do. Anyone involved in racing nows about the costs, so thats not real fair to use scare tactics. Thats why there are choices, CMC, AI, AIX, VVC. Why anyone would spend the huge dollars to run at this level escapes me, but to each his own. But that doesn't mean we all have to spend endless $ to be competitve. I believe the prevailing attitude in AI is to maintain a certain readily obtainable cost level. Thats why there is AIX and the VVC. No, there is no magic number, and yes, some will far exceed the norm, but most don't want to spend 10K on a rear suspension at this level.

 

Mark, I have made comments about your proposal. It is self serving, to vague and difficult to police, and potentially opens the flood gates, which I believe that most are not interested in. What I need to see is that the KB system doesn't offer an unfair andvantage, rules can be written and policed fairly and inexpensively, and that this doesn't leave the door open for someone else to find huge loop holes in these new set of rules.

 

edit: added the word huge. I'm not so naive to believe that rules aren't challenged and stretched.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you guys are missing the point. Most people involved at this level and in this series don't want to spend 10K on a rear suspension, and probably never will, regaurdless of what others do. Anyone involved in racing nows about the costs, so thats not real fair to use scare tactics. Thats why there are choices, CMC, AI, AIX, VVC. Why anyone would spend the huge dollars to run at this level escapes me, but to each his own. But that doesn't mean we all have to spend endless $ to be competitve. I believe the prevailing attitude in AI is to maintain a certain readily obtainable cost level. Thats why there is AIX and the VVC. No, there is no magic number, and yes, some will far exceed the norm, but most don't want to spend 10K on a rear suspension at this level.

 

Mark, I have made comments about your proposal. It is self serving, to vague and difficult to police, and potentially opens the flood gates, which I believe that most are not interested in. What I need to see is that the KB system doesn't offer an unfair andvantage, rules can be written and policed fairly and inexpensively, and that this doesn't leave the door open for someone else to find loop holes in these new set of rules.

 

What is the unfair advantage of the off the shelf, anyone can purchase today KB modified IRS?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the unfair advantage of the off the shelf, anyone can purchase today KB modified IRS?

 

Maybe nothing, but what if it does prove to be much better than the existing suspensions. If it severely tips the balance, than anyone not using it will be at a large disadvantage. (not the point of AI)

Wouldn't it be unfair to list a single manufactures entire rear suspension to be deemed legal in the rules? What about an individual or manufacturer who wants to make a similiar system, but can do it cheaper or make it lighter or slightly better?

The other side is to write a set of rules similiar to what Mark W. has proposed, which are to vague, difficult to police, and potentially to wide open for interpretaion. It is very difficult, because slight mods may be within reason, but where does it start and stop?

How good is the KB system? Maybe it sucks and Brian is just an excellent driver. But, I don't think it sucks and I do think it improves on many of the limitaions of the Ford stock IRS. And if this system or one that is yet to be developed corrects most or all of the stock IRS problems than it most likely will be unfair.

I deliberately used some vague terms and asked questions, becasue I simply don't know. Perhaps someone who does know should offer some information. Any other opinions?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but it is difficult to get any work done with all this interesting information flying around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's all intertwined but this thread should be disussing if we allow the frame rails to be cut.

 

Dave is correct this topic has become quite involved and I've spent far too much time away from my work so I'm going to try and make this my last post on the subject.

 

My vote goes to NOT allowing any cutting or removal of material from frame rails. That applies equally to any existing suspension or any that may be dreamed up in the future.

 

Any discussion on the IRS can be taken to the other thread and if it is found that modifying the IRS pick up points is okay then it could be used with stock a-arms or equivalent that do not require notching the frame.

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the unfair advantage of the off the shelf, anyone can purchase today KB modified IRS?

 

Maybe nothing, but what if it does prove to be much better than the existing suspensions. If it severely tips the balance, than anyone not using it will be at a large disadvantage. (not the point of AI)

Wouldn't it be unfair to list a single manufactures entire rear suspension to be deemed legal in the rules? What about an individual or manufacturer who wants to make a similiar system, but can do it cheaper or make it lighter or slightly better?

The other side is to write a set of rules similiar to what Mark W. has proposed, which are to vague, difficult to police, and potentially to wide open for interpretaion. It is very difficult, because slight mods may be within reason, but where does it start and stop?

How good is the KB system? Maybe it sucks and Brian is just an excellent driver. But, I don't think it sucks and I do think it improves on many of the limitaions of the Ford stock IRS. And if this system or one that is yet to be developed corrects most or all of the stock IRS problems than it most likely will be unfair.

I deliberately used some vague terms and asked questions, becasue I simply don't know. Perhaps someone who does know should offer some information. Any other opinions?

 

I don't know about anyone else, but it is difficult to get any work done with all this interesting information flying around.

 

Dave your question is getting a bit discombobulated. It goes to the fairness of how good parts are. Is it fair that a stock suspended mustang won't ever compete with a fully prepared Griggs or MM car? The TA/PB cars proved to be heads and shoulders against other suspensions for a long time. It took KB and Steeda even MM a while to catch up.

 

Is is fair that KB has put in the time and research on the IRS and been able to make improvements when other companies have not yet invested the R&D dollars in the IRS?

 

If you go back a number of pages I suggested that the rules be massaged for each company if they want to work with the IRS. If anyone wants to cast an upper arm that does not need clearancing (big $$$) and modify the IRS to make it handle better I urge them to do that. Right now no-one is taking that opportunity to my knowledge. When they do improve upon it then they can approach the AI leaders and have the discussion on how it will fit within the AI rules.

 

The rules call out a close relationship and support of the aftermarket suspension companies for this race class. Do you think that the KB IRS fits within the spirit of these rules?

 

How good is the KB system? Maybe it sucks and Brian is just an excellent driver. But, I don't think it sucks and I do think it improves on many of the limitaions of the Ford stock IRS. And if this system or one that is yet to be developed corrects most or all of the stock IRS problems than it most likely will be unfair.

 

The process you just described is exactly what happend when griggs and MM came out with complete front and rear suspension packages. They were faster than just about anything you could get? Is it unfair that they did the R&D to make the mustang faster that is was with only springs, dampers, lower control arms or even a Track-link? I say no. It's an evolustion of the platform. The KB IRS is an evolution of the ford platform just as the Griggs/MM TA/PB is an evolution of the OEM Quadrabind.

 

If it severely tips the balance, than anyone not using it will be at a large disadvantage. (not the point of AI)

 

This is currently happening to cars that are not running a 5 link, PB/TA and modified front ends. People seem to also forget that as mark said, we all have to run the same tires, brakes, wt:hp, track width, wheelbase and a myriad of other things. the Suspension is only one part. There still needs to be someone that can drive the damn thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it's all intertwined but this thread should be disussing if we allow the frame rails to be cut.

 

Dave is correct this topic has become quite involved and I've spent far too much time away from my work so I'm going to try and make this my last post on the subject.

 

My vote goes to NOT allowing any cutting or removal of material from frame rails. That applies equally to any existing suspension or any that may be dreamed up in the future.

 

Any discussion on the IRS can be taken to the other thread and if it is found that modifying the IRS pick up points is okay then it could be used with stock a-arms or equivalent that do not require notching the frame.

 

Richard.

 

Where does the torque box fall in this vote? they are integrated within the frame rail and must be cut out to use longer world challenge style control arms?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in the IRS thread the other day, but since that topic has pretty much moved here, I felt that it should be re-posted here:

 

I am glad that Brian and Mark are running the IRS in AI. I'm happy to see someone put forth the effort to try something new. I wish I could have done it several years ago when I swapped the IRS into my fox body.

I'm all for modifications being allowed to the Ford Mustang IRS...

 

If you want to limit the modifications to the Ford Mustang IRS:

-Require the use of the factory IRS cradle, (the section everything is mounted to).

-Leave the control arm pick up points open, as long as they use the stock cradle without additional metal being added.

-Control arms should be open.

-Spindle should remain stock.

-Center section/ differential case/ carrier (what ever you want to call it) should remain stock, (with the exception of gears, differential and cooler).

-Axles should remain stock or OEM equivalent (look/function the same).

 

As far as the frame rail modification for the KB IRS setup:

I know/fully understand why KB has notched the frame rail for his modified IRS setup. There is no way around it if you lower the car, run the KB tubular UCA's, modified cradle and still want some compression travel over dips/bumps. I think the KB setup is well within the intentions of the class.

A simple solution would be supplying a piece of metal for the frame rail modifications (supplied by KB when you buy the KB tubular UCA's).

Rule enforcement people could simply have a stencil to compare the competitors car to the supplied unit, (for size/shape).

Or you could simply supply/make a stencil available for people to fabricate on their own. You have to set the maximum depth measured from the edge of the frame rail either way.

 

As far as the Mustang IRS modifications being allowed:

I have tried just about every rear suspension setup out there (99+ Cobra IRS, 5-link, TA/PB (both Griggs/MM), Global West, etc...) and I can tell you from my experience the factory IRS setup will not be competitive with the well sorted solid axle setups available for the Mustang (and other cars) that are readily available.

 

On the whole IRS legality issue:

You are going to have to break the rules down buy make/model (i.e.: Ford Mustang, Pontiac GTO)... If the future of AI has new cars entering the series that come with IRS setups then require them to run it in 100% stock trim with he exception of:

-Gears

-Differential

-Bushings

Once that specific (Brand/Model) IRS is determined to be a limiting factor; the rules can be changed to accommodate the competitiveness of that vehicle and it's IRS.

 

 

Tom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit! You got me posting again.

 

Why do you say the torque box is a part of the frame rail?

 

Excuse my ignorance but I thought the torque boxes were the mounting location of the lower control arms. They maybe mounted to the frame rail to give the control arm mount more strength but you surely can't call them the frame rail. The floor pan is secured to the frame rail, does that make it the frame rail?

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are really dealing with a lot of what ifs and not a lot of data. If the KB IRS was clearly dominant then our car would be A LOT faster than it is even though it is new. We are as close to the 9.5:1 as two other cars in our class and we also weight about the same. Will we be faster? I hope so because right now I would honestly say we still have work to do if we want to be in front.

 

While I understand the concerns people have lets look at some facts here:

 

1. Rules should not be made to accomidate a certain part or manufacturer.

Fact - rule 6.1 specifics a Mustang max width which was based on a Mustang with Griggs/MM front control arms

Fact - rule 7.3G specifies that the floor can be modified to accomidate suspensions such as three links. We have made a rule to fit a certain type of suspension. Now we all know that three links can be made to work within the confines of the stock floorpan but we allow this modification anyway, why?

Fact - rule 7.3.2 allows the front shock towers to be modified to install an SLA. We have again made a rule to accomidate a certain type of suspension. Perhaps not a particular brand but a type. The rule is vague and does leave some room for interpretation.

 

2. Race results so far do not show the KB IRS car to be dominate.

Fact - I don't think this needs to be discussed any further because the facts do speak for themselves. Our old car has won races and our new car has one races. We did not walk away from the field at any time.

 

3. No one is asking for an unlimited ,made from scratch IRS to be allowed. If you feel that my proposed rules are self serving the provide some ideas.

 

4. Read the intent and introduction of the AI rules. It clearly suggests that competitors create an aftermarket-sourced configuration that will make their car perform at an optimum level. Suggesting a stock IRS be the only system allowed goes against the charter of AI.

 

5. An unlimited, modified and sorted solid axle is equal to a stock IRS

Fact- This argument is honestly laughable. I myself have proven MANY times that my Griggs equipped solid axle car can run rings around relatively stock IRS cars which have more hp. If you'd like video's or testimonials (although they hate to admit it! ) I can get it for you.

 

When do you decide that one particular suspension is clearly dominate? If it wins every race it enters? half? third? I'm trying to understand how this would be decided.

 

Dave - I'm not missing your point at all. Mark L can talk all he wants about building a $10k IRS system but until someone does I don't see the point of the discussion. You can easily build yourself a $10k solid axle set-up or a $13k AI legal motor. Do you need this to win? The answer is no.

 

I am cost conscience just like everyone else but I still don't have any facts that show me how this would get out of control.[/b]

Link to post
Share on other sites
shoo-shiddily-diddily! You got me posting again.

 

Why do you say the torque box is a part of the frame rail?

 

Excuse my ignorance but I thought the torque boxes were the mounting location of the lower control arms. They maybe mounted to the frame rail to give the control arm mount more strength but you surely can't call them the frame rail. The floor pan is secured to the frame rail, does that make it the frame rail?

 

Richard.

 

 

Essentially I can cut the entire floor pan out of the car behind the drivers seat, mount whatever control system to the solid axle car I want, at any length and forward mounting location but I cannot use the KB supplied template to ensure the upper arms do not hit the rail? I just don't see the logic in that, especially if you limit the amount that can be cut. As for future modifications of the IRS, if a manufacturer is moving the points so much that they are taking more than what KB takes out (which is generous) they have moved the points a huge amount, and these things don't respond well to huge movements of the RC, IC ect.....

 

It seems that you guys really don't want us to race this car in AI next year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shoo-shiddily-diddily! You got me posting again.

 

Why do you say the torque box is a part of the frame rail?

 

Excuse my ignorance but I thought the torque boxes were the mounting location of the lower control arms. They maybe mounted to the frame rail to give the control arm mount more strength but you surely can't call them the frame rail. The floor pan is secured to the frame rail, does that make it the frame rail?

 

Richard.

 

Richard - I know this probably won't be believed but at Ford at the assembly plant we considered the lower control arm forward mounting location (torque boxes) to be part of the frame. Not the frame rails but the frame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

 

I'm not against you, in fact I made the suggestion earlier in the thread to let you run and see how it performs.

 

However this thread is not about you or your car.

 

This thread is about if we think the frame rails should be allowed to be cut or modified.

 

I have stated my opinion a few posts above this one.

 

The following facts are the reason why I have continued to post:

 

You stated ealier that there is little to no perfomance advantage in using the KB tubular arms. You also stated that the frame rails were notched purely because of the tubular arms.

 

You later stated that the stock arms could be used with the IRS.

 

Therefore there must be little to no performance disadvantage to using the stock arms

 

Do the KB installation instructions say the rails must be cut or do they state that better suspension travel is available if you cut the rails?

 

I hope we find a suitable resolution and I hope to be racing against you.

 

Any other other discussions on the IRS do not belong here.

 

For the record, I don't think anyone should be able to cut the floor pan for 3rd links in AI. This should be AIX only.

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The installation directions state in bold text that the frame rail must be modified to accomidate the arms if the vehicle is to be lowered more than 1/2". The kit provides a template and also new metal to add to the frame rail when cut per the template.

 

With both the upper and lower arms being the same length as stock it isn't possible to gain more travel than the stock arms for a couple different reasons. The geometry of the arms will only allow so much travel and the half shaft will hit the swaybar if it is extended to much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luna, you obviously don't see it. I won't try to convey my points to you any longer as you have been missing them for 5 pages now. Good luck with your future endevours.

 

It would seem that other people "don't see it" either. My future endevours will be partially based on this ruling, and of course my stores but that is a different thread.

 

Dave - I'm not missing your point at all. Mark L can talk all he wants about building a $10k IRS system but until someone does I don't see the point of the discussion.

 

The point of this discussion is what could happen. The directors have been gracious enough to give us this opportunity to discuss it so they can make a good decision based partically on what the drivers and participants think. Many drivers have voiced their opinions and I think that is great!

I remember last year about this time that we had a big discussion about torque to weight. We were told then that "it couldn't happen" that someone couldn't build a high torque motor and still limit the amount of HP to weight. Well behold Mid-Ohio. A car get's dynoed and makes HP to weight, but is at a whopping 400 ft lb's of torque! He is disqualified from that qualifying. They put him in the back of the field in the race where he came back from and was in front of every AI car by the 20 minute mark.

This discussion is about what could happen. It's an open conversation to eliminate the domination or monopolization of our series. We've been told by certain others in the past that things couldn't happen and it has been proven since that they can.

 

No one wants to lose the Wilstone's car, but this thread isn't about that car. It's about whether to open up the rules to allow frame notching, cutting, modification etc, and that effects everyone. Discussing what could happen is a much better idea than the alternative of this has already happened, what do you do about it discussion which the directors are already having to deal with. Why make a future one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, the car that made 400lb.ft also made damn near 375hp at the wheels. That is a tish too much for the 2900lb after race weight he usually comes in at. He was not trying to cheat anyone he simply didn't know what the car would make. He was there as pantas puts it, simply to have fun and not care about points or AI. He merely wanted to race.

 

 

For the future, I guess that I don't see the issue with allowing the frame mods that KB has stated for his set up. They are very generous. They are still not enough to make a one off crazy 10k IRS, or a super lowered solid axle car. Until other companies comeout with modified IRS units KB has set the bar. This can be thought of just like measuring the SN95 MM cars with the 'race' control arms as a benchmark for the track width that all mustangs must not conform to.

 

Will you be at Putnam?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark, the car that made 400lb.ft also made damn near 375hp at the wheels. That is a tish too much for the 2900lb after race weight he usually comes in at.

 

Brian,

I was there for the dyno pulls. I saw the power curve and the HP was around 320 ish. I'm not claiming he was attempting to cheat. He looked stunned when he saw the sheet.

 

 

Will you be at Putnam?

 

It looks like only as a spectator on Sunday. I can't get away from work on Friday afternoon and definitely not on Saturday. I thought about running Sunday only, but it's not worth the pull up. I'll be there for support if anyone wants a helping hand in the paddock or pits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to tell you that someone could already come in with a custom solid axle suspension that costs $10k given the current solid axle rules and you would be in the same boat that you say you might be in. AI's been around for 4 years and no one has done it yet. The incentive isn't there as you can buy those wood plaques anywhere.

 

What would be the difference between the rule we have to modify the front shock towers for SLA clearance and modify the rear frame rails for IRS upper arm clearance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to tell you that someone could already come in with a custom solid axle suspension that costs $10k given the current solid axle rules and you would be in the same boat that you say you might be in. AI's been around for 4 years and no one has done it yet. The incentive isn't there as you can buy those wood plaques anywhere.

 

What would be the difference between the rule we have to modify the front shock towers for SLA clearance and modify the rear frame rails for IRS upper arm clearance?

 

Mark,

 

I have the Bartworks SLA and I have not modified the shock towers nor do I need to. I don't believe the new Griggs requires any modification either. So I have no idea why we need to allow it in AI, leave the modifications for AIX.

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to tell you that someone could already come in with a custom solid axle suspension that costs $10k given the current solid axle rules and you would be in the same boat that you say you might be in. AI's been around for 4 years and no one has done it yet. The incentive isn't there as you can buy those wood plaques anywhere.

 

Someone could spend twice that and would still be limited to the fact that the stick axle can only do so much. It is and always will be about compromise on a stick axle where an IRS has more opportunity. I've gone through that about a million times.

 

What would be the difference between the rule we have to modify the front shock towers for SLA clearance and modify the rear frame rails for IRS upper arm clearance?

 

I don't want to speculate as to what the directors rational was. My assumption is they wanted to open up the front suspension rules knowing that the rear suspension rules were a limiting factor. This is a question that should be asked of a director, not me.

For the record, I don't think that we should be allowed to modify the shock towers for suspension componenents. I ran an SLA that didn't require modifications to anything.

 

Let the suspensions be built to the rules, not the rules to the suspensions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark W., You asked a question, regarding the KB IRS being within the spirit of AI and I never answered it.

Honestly, I don't know. I don't know enough about what changes that have been made, other than there has been some. From a casual look, it does not appear radical or extreme, but surely there have been some changes to the control arm/pick up points other than just being made from tube frame. The AI directors should thoroughly review the entire design and decide if the changes are too extreme. Right down to all the dimension changes and if notching the frame is the only solution. Without knowing all of the details its difficult. I think I've already said enough about my conserns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The KB arms have the same mounting points, length and height as the stock arms. You can install them in a factory unmodified IRS carrier and they will mount to the exact same mounting points on both the carrier and the spindle. The advantage of them over the stock arms is weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The KB arms have the same mounting points, length and height as the stock arms. You can install them in a factory unmodified IRS carrier and they will mount to the exact same mounting points on both the carrier and the spindle. The advantage of them over the stock arms is weight.

 

I thought that various points were slightly different from stock. Previous discussions included the alteration of the roll center and IC, or is that achieved by simply lowering the car. It is my understanding that their system offered more than just wieght savings. Aren't there others pieces available to alter the geometry?

This is why I feel the administration needs to get the details first hand. A lot of information has been thrown out and I wouldn't want the details, which are paramount, to get lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...