Tubular K-member points, PART 2

[TurboShortBus]

This is a continuation of a previous thread that just became locked without fully answering my initial question:

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27976

 

Matt is correct. +2 points.

Thank you for that reply, Greg. However, what is the reasoning behind this? I can already tell from reading the existing rules that a tubular K-member that does not alter any suspension geometry is +2 points, so that's easy enough, but (I'll restate) I am curious about the reason behind those points, that's all. I feel that I have effectively explained my question in the original thread, so I don't need to go into details again here.

 

Please advise.

 

Mark

[Shawn M.]

This is a continuation of a previous thread that just became locked without fully answering my initial question:

 

http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27976

 

Matt is correct. +2 points.

Thank you for that reply, Greg. However, what is the reasoning behind this? I can already tell from reading the existing rules that a tubular K-member that does not alter any suspension geometry is +2 points, so that's easy enough, but (I'll restate) I am curious about the reason behind those points, that's all. I feel that I have effectively explained my question in the original thread, so I don't need to go into details again here.

 

Please advise.

 

Mark

 

 

Welp..... My official position on this is that the rule exisits partly because not ALL cars have K members. So not all cars can change them. So if you want to change yours, you take the points for it. The advantage of the aftermarket k-members goes beyond saving weight. Just like Matt said and Greg said.

 

There is your answer.

[Trevor57]

Thats the first reason that even makes sense

[kbrew8991]

it'd be very tough to prove it was for weight reduction only anyways...

[TurboShortBus]

Thats the first reason that even makes sense

I'm with you on that one. That's all I was looking for...a reply with some sort of explanation for the reason.

 

Thank you, Shawn, for an actual answer.

 

Mark

[TurboShortBus]

it'd be very tough to prove it was for weight reduction only anyways...

Quite honestly, that's the only thing I'd be after, as I don't see how most tubular K-members could be any stiffer than the stock battle ax that's under there (manufacturer designs vary greatly, though). I was looking at it from a weight loss standpoint (since the suspension wouldn't move), and I saw several parallels to zero-point modifications such as removing all HVAC and switching to a lightweight battery.

 

But hey, now that we have an answer, this is all moot anyway!

 

Mark