robrob Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) SPC adjustable ball joints on the S2000 act simply as a camber plate and offer no additional advantage. It's a 0 point mod. Edited June 9, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZELISE Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 SPC adjustable ball joints on the S2000 act simply as a camber plate and offer no additional advantage. It's a 0 point mod. Thanks for wording the above perfectly. They "act" as a camber plate and are not a camber plate. You just summed up why they should be assessed points under the rules. These are the same rules that were in place before Nationals by the way. Relocating suspension mounting points also "acts" as a camber/caster plate but I bet you would be upset if I relocated mounting points without taking the points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted June 9, 2009 National Staff Share Posted June 9, 2009 Rob, As Sam Myers pointed out in another thread, this has been the National ruling since the 2007 season. If you can, please show us where in the rules it says that if a part that is assessed points "acts" like a part on the No-Points list, it is points free. You are apparently upset with me pointing out the mistake that you and others may have made in classing your cars? Perhaps it would be better if you or someone else went to the Championships and was disqualified for not taking these points? This is not a mid-season change or re-classification. This is NASA finding out that more than one of their TT drivers have taken it upon themselves to redefine the rules for their specific car model. Some drivers need to start taking some responsibility for the modifications that they make to their cars. If there is a points assessment for "Alteration of ball joints" then it MEANS there is a points assessment for alteration of ball joints. If you, or anyone else, has a question about it, then send an e-mail to your Regional TT Director, or better yet, the National TT Director who will make the final decision on a protest appeal. Vehicle legality is the sole responsibility of the driver. NASA TT Officials will attempt to use less invasive techniques for monitoring TT rules compliance than is expected in NASA race classes. As such, penalties for non-compliance with the rules will be harsh, and may include disqualification and expulsion from further NASA TT competition with a single infraction, regardless of the nature of the infraction. Competitors are encouraged to seek clarification of any rule and/or inspection of any modified or non-OEM part they are unsure about, before competition, from their Regional TT Director or the National TT Director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanSTi Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Wow, another thread about this? Are these magical ball joints really worth getting so worked up over? As far as I can tell all of the dominant TTC cars are S2K's anyway so if you ALL remove them...problem solved, you're back on level ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 SPC adjustable ball joints on the S2000 act simply as a camber plate and offer no additional advantage. It's a 0 point mod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 find another way to get camber that is points-free, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 You need to keep in mind why NASA was formed. The SCCA had become so rigid and anal that people didn't want to deal with them. This ball joint issue has been handled exactly how the SCCA would have handled it. You guys should be looking at the intent of the rules. The SPC ball joints allow the S2000 to add camber, just like any 0 point camber plate, there's no other competitive advantage. Another perfect expample is Aaron's front bumper. Do you really think he gains an advantage with the "canard" shape of that tiny ridge on the bumper? Last year at the November Mid-A final TT Cale showed up right at the point limit with a questionable front bumper. He asked the rest of us if we had any problems with it and no one did because we knew he wasn't kicking our ass because of his AP2 bumper. That's the spirit of NASA, not "He beat me so I'm going to get the son-of-a-bitch disqualified." You guys are going to open up an opportunity for a third national organization with corporate values of the old NASA. This thread isn't about "More SPC Ball Joints," it's about how you're running the TT forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If a bumper gives you +6 points and doesn't do anything, TAKE IT OFF. Do you really expect NASA to make rules exceptions every time somebody thinks a part doesn't really do anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 This thread isn't about "More SPC Ball Joints," it's about how you're running the TT forum. Actually this thread IS about More SPC Ball Joints. It says so in the title... but now you are changing it. I really enjoy running with NASA Mid-A and you're screwing it up. Did you mean you really enjoy running in Time Trials without a) reading the rules, b) applying the rules or c) classifying your car according to the rules? If you and your MA buddies have a wink-wink-nod-nod good 'ol boy agreement on classing your cars so be it. But there is a better way to class cars and it's according to the rules. BTW unless you actually have something of substance to add (other than just bitching about having to take points for ball joints) this thread is going to get locked too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If a bumper gives you +6 points and doesn't do anything, TAKE IT OFF. Do you really expect NASA to make rules exceptions every time somebody thinks a part doesn't really do anything? I'd love to put new mufflers on my car to make it sound better, and I really doubt there would be any performance advantage, but I don't because it costs points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZELISE Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 After thinking about this from a different perspective I can understand all the passion. These drivers recieved what they thought was reliable information. Spent money on the ball joints, time to install, and an alignment. They probably spent a few months getting the right camber and realigning the car. They have alot invested. I think they should be upset with the initial information though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor57 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Received information from who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpnwiz Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 After thinking about this from a different perspective I can understand all the passion. These drivers recieved what they thought was reliable information. Spent money on the ball joints, time to install, and an alignment. They probably spent a few months getting the right camber and realigning the car. They have alot invested. I think they should be upset with the initial information though. What's hard to understand is why, before spending money on the ball joints, install, alignment and setup, that someone wouldn't post and ask if it was OK - because the rules specifically STATE "ball joints +2"! - and then complain about it after the fact. I understand the passion too, but it's misdirected. They should be pissed at themselves or "the guy" that told them everything was fine. We have a ruleset that gives intensely close competition from cars that start with drastically different performance potential. It's proven to work. But it only works when the rules are followed and the cars are classed correctly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 even after Greg's ruling and looking at the part I still think its just baaarrreellly outside the "simple camber" free mod line, but it is outside. I can understand being a little bit hussy over it, but this is kinda overboard. Find another way for camber - I'm sure you can find some offset bushings or slot something to get what you need with a little bit of effort and then everyone will be (mostly) happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 The confusion is unfortunate and I do feel for people who may have been honestly caught out by this, especially if it pushes them over the point limit. I do agree with the idea that it is absolutely the competitor's final responsibility to make certain that they're within the rules. As has been pointed out, there hasn't been a rule change here, and when the confusion became evident Greg clarified the situation pretty clearly. I don't know what more one could ask for from the organization: the rules on this point have been kept stable and the situation has been clarified without ambiguity. It is the competitor's responsibility to comply. Repeatedly belaboring the point and making it personal with namecalling doesn't help a protestor's case in my view. Locking a thread that's gone off the rails is common practice on boards I'd consider well-run. Just my dos centavos. YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drivinhardz06 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I'd love to put new mufflers on my car to make it sound better, and I really doubt there would be any performance advantage, but I don't because it costs points. I'll bring some free aftermarket mufflers for you at Lowe's filled with concrete I'll even turn a blind eye to your modifying the exhaust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrie Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Doesn't mean to jump in what seem like a pissing contest. I do want to understand the part in question. Is this the ball joint on the upper arm with the purpose of adjusting camber? If it is indeed, this is about the simplest way to adjust camber or caster for double wishbone cars. Camber/Caster plates does not apply for double wishbone cars as they do nothing for double wishbone car. Camber/Caster plates are only for McPherson strut type suspension. The ball adjustable ball joint on the upper arm also doesn't change any dive angle or suspension mounting points. In fact Camber/Caster plate does change the suspension pick up points. If the part is not what I thought it was, ignore all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 you're on target Andrie - unfortunatley the way things are written it does not fall under the free mod line. I think if it were able to be proven that it only changes camber angle that it would allow a bit more pairty in adjustment options between SLA and MacStrut cars if thats needed. Thats definitely more of a Greg thing, bit out of my leauge... The ball joints +2 line (I speculate) is meant more to catch stuff like the AI guys do on the front of a Mustang to "fix" its horrid geometry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrie Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Ken, I might be wrong, but to me the wording is as clear as a bell. NO-POINTS MODIFICATIONS: 10) Simple camber, caster, and toe adjustment by any method that does not alter suspension mounting points (unless the modification used is otherwise assessed points above). Bolt on camber/caster plates are not assessed points. This simply says any method. It also adds exception to camber/caster plates, even though it clears that camber/caster plates alter suspension mounting points. You also have to ask what is the goal on this rule? To me it is clear that the goal is to not assess a point for camber, caster, and toe adjustments regardless of the suspension design. Now let's visit SUSPENSION/BRAKES/CHASSIS: 16) Alteration of ball joints/dive angles. This is the one need more clarification. What is the goal on number 16? To me, this is directed more toward dive angles. Changing possibly camber curves or roll center. This rule clearly to prevent any geometry change to suspension. Again, I might be wrong and would love to hear the argument. We are lucky to have open forum. Obviously we should have not lower ourselves to bickering, instead have a constructive arguments. It is impossible for a person or even a group of person to know everything given the variance of the car available. This is not a spec series. But it is important to have an open mind and possibly the willingness to discuss the matter with those people that are more familiar with the car or suspension geometry in general. Obviously robrob approach is not a good one IMHO. Nobody likes a confrontational approach as it is very rarely bring good results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrc24x Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If I was put in the middle of a protest at the track over the ball joints I would refer to rule 10. That would lead me to rule 16. End of story. 16) Alteration of ball joints/dive angles +2 10) Simple camber, caster, and toe adjustment by any method that does not alter suspension mounting points (unless the modification used is otherwise assessed points above). Bolt on camber/caster plates are not assessed points. It's 2 points , relax. Dems da rules. Same for everyone. IBTL please....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share Posted June 9, 2009 The adjustable ball joints fit "the spirit of the rule" for simple camber adjustment. A little commen sense should be used in the ruling, not SCCA style nit-picking to gain the upper hand on a faster competitor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrie Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 If I was put in the middle of a protest at the track over the ball joints I would refer to rule 10. That would lead me to rule 16. End of story. 16) Alteration of ball joints/dive angles +2 10) Simple camber, caster, and toe adjustment by any method that does not alter suspension mounting points (unless the modification used is otherwise assessed points above). Bolt on camber/caster plates are not assessed points. It's 2 points , relax. Dems da rules. Same for everyone. IBTL please....... Unfortunately this is not so simple. It is not the same for everyone as everyone runs different cars and different suspension design. The wording is far from end of story as you put it. The wording of the rule still open to interpretation, like any rule. The bottom line is what is the intent of the rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) mrc24x nailed what I found when I looked really close at things as well The bottom line is what is the intent of the rule? that is an excellent question. If I understand the geometry (which is a big assumption ) the upper ball joint can't really be used to do anything except alter caster/camber for you SLA guys - in essence acting like your caster/camber plate (which can have a bigger effect on geometry with MacStrut than this part does) I'm guessing there is a behind-the-scenes thing that Greg hasn't told us that makes sense why its this way, our assumptions/understanding of the geometry is wrong, or maybe both. Edited June 9, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric J. Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 The adjustable ball joints fit "the spirit of the rule" for simple camber adjustment. A little commen sense should be used in the ruling, not SCCA style nit-picking to gain the upper hand on a faster competitor. Everybody is going to interpret "the spirit" of the rules to their own benefit. This is why it isn't a practical argument. There isn't going to be universal agreement on what the 'spirit' of the rule may or may not be. Any ambiguity in the rule has been clarified by the people that matter, and in my view it's consistent with what's been there all along and is sensible. It seems to me that at this point you have a choice: comply, or keep grousing about it. One of those paths is more productive than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguydave Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 "Spirit of the rule" can be looked at two ways on this issue... On the one hand, all it really does is allow for additional camber adjustment, functionally equivalent to a camber plate. On the other hand, an SLA suspension, as has been mentioned previously, is inherently superior to a MacPhereson design, and allowing additional static camber for the McStrut cars simply allows for a level playing field. If you don't see the difference, map out the camber curves for both designs, and that will pop open your eyes. There IS a reason that the Mustang crowd (McStrut stock) has a variety of aftermarket SLA SYSTEMS available. Since we've had clarification on this item, it only makes sense. The S2000 looks like a TTC category-killer, so anything that would help to even out that field would add to the parity within the class, and thus to better competition. It all makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.