More SPC Ball Joints

[Greg G.]

I stated my case. Which is an argument I present for most double wishbone FWD cars.

 

However, I just realized this is for an S2000. S2000 already have camber adjuster on the bottom control arm from the factory. Why do you need the upper ball joint as well? The argument of just for camber adjustment do not hold here, as you already have camber adjuster on the lower control arm. I know camber adjustment is not as easy, but....

Exactly, Andrie, but above, you began a debate that has no validity PER THE RULES. You and I, as racers that actually read the rules of whatever class we compete in and follow them closely, both understand that "intent of the rule" only gets you so far in protesting or defending a protest.

 

What is so funny and ridiculous about this thread, and all of the others that are similar (beside Jimmy and Patrick somehow managing to get into another tit-for-tat about old issues), is that the same guys that want us to forget about the objectively written rule, and go with a subjective interpretation that benefits them specifically, actually complain that those of us that write and interpret the rules officially, are being too subjective and biased. Unfortunately, because of the attempts by the competitors to do whatever they can to gain a performance advantage without taking a points assessment, we must follow the written rules, as written. "Intent issues" can always be handled by Technical Bulletins. Those tech inspecting your cars, and TT and Race Directors, may or may not be able to correctly identify the original intent of a rule. So, do you really want them to be trying to? For those of you who haven't gotten the clue yet, there was never an "intent" for double wishbone cars to get camber changes in any ways other than those specifically listed. As I posted in the last thread before I locked it, NASA has been aware for many years that certain cars DO NOT end up getting to make camber changes for No-Points. They end up taking between two and four points, and rarely seven (for control arms and metallic bushings). The alternative was to add another asterisk (or "X" amount of base weight) to every car that has a double wishbone suspension, or add another line on the suspension list "OEM double wishbone suspension +"X"". I can hear the crying about that one already...."My car has to take "X" amount of points for being stock?" Yes, just like we hear from the turbo guys now, about taking the +5 points for having OEM forced induction.

 

Keep this thread civil, and stop confusing those that are new and think, "well, it is still being debated....maybe I can still use them for no points", or IT WILL BE LOCKED, whether certain people like it or not.

[Greg G.]

 

You are correct. I did not write the rule. However, if the rules state....(once again)

 

16) Alteration of ball joints/dive angles +2

 

Then add 2 points. The intent of the rule is to add 2 freakin points if you don't have OEM ball joints..............no wonder Greg locks these threads.

No wonder.

[kbrew8991]

snipped because I too don't understand the difference between intent and results when it comes to rules writing

did you have some of Patrick's retard flakes this morning too? I kid

 

thanks for coming in and filling us in Greg - though it does beg the question: What is taken into consideration when setting up a car's base class and weight?

 

I ask this because I think having the factors out there could allevieate a metric buttload of whining about "my car shouldn't be assessed for this", etc, etc. Plus more transperency wouldn't be a bad thing...

Edited June 9, 2009 by Guest

[ninetyfourintegra]

So when is the Road Atlanta challenge race again?

[kbrew8991]

So when is the Road Atlanta challenge race again?

 

I think I could make it out there in December. Prob bolt on some sticker Hoosier As for Sunday morning for a track record assault if I've got the budget (and potential). That 1:48.79 was set by a legal car then, but not one that would fit the new adjusted hp/weight limits I think... it'll be tough, but a real accomplishment to grab it

[AZELISE]

Offset bushings are legal! Read the rules And there ARE other ways to get camber. I've heard some of the Spec Miata guys "accidentally" dropping their A-arms in a press and tweaking them to get more... just saying. There are ways to do it. Now that is of course not legal in a spec class, but would a tweaked OEM A-arm in PT be legal? I really don't know!

I would like to see an official word on this. I read the "simple" part of the rule as meaning the simple adjustment allowed by the OEM design. I did not read this as fabricating parts. If it is allowed, 2 degrees of negative camber would be better than what I have now.

 

So, are non OEM offset bushings allowed? Can I slot the holes where the a-arms attach? Are non OEM crash bolts legal? Can I replace the A-arm bolts with eccentric bolts?

Edited June 9, 2009 by Guest

[phoenixR34]

Then add 2 points. The intent of the rule is to add 2 freakin points if you don't have OEM ball joints..............no wonder Greg locks these threads.

 

LOL. It's too bad the forum only allows 100 characters in a sig., otherwise I'd be adding this quote to mine.

[Michael Alsip]

[vpnwiz]

I don’t think it is the rules that make you guys run that close to each other. Rather, the fact that most people are close in talent level.

Interesting. I suppose we must all be the same talent level then. Odd that it would be like that over 10 races and a bunch of TT weekends through three different regions and Nationals last year...

 

The problems begin when someone like Aaron shows up with superior talent and lays a couple of seconds on your asses you all start crawling like cockroaches to find something wrong with their car. I personally think that is pathetic.

And yet again, you support cars running in the wrong class. No respect for the rules Jimmy. You've got no respect. And you get no respect because of the * on your "championship".

 

Nobody is trying to make canards out of duct tape Patrick!

Hello! That was the hypothetical situation you posed to me.

 

I am officially done responding to you in this thread because you are (yet again) advocating cheating and supporting cars running in the incorrect class. You have no respect for the rules because you only care about ONE rule - the "intent" rule that you think makes those illegal parts on your car OK.

 

God I wish this board had a killfile/ignore filter.

[mrc24x]

snipped because I too don't understand the difference between intent and results when it comes to rules writing

did you have some of Patrick's retard flakes this morning too? I kid

 

thanks for coming in and filling us in Greg - though it does beg the question: What is taken into consideration when setting up a car's base class and weight?

 

I ask this because I think having the factors out there could allevieate a metric buttload of whining about "my car shouldn't be assessed for this", etc, etc. Plus more transperency wouldn't be a bad thing...

 

 

 

 

Ken,

 

I don't know where you got that quote from.(not mine) Check the thread again and have another bowl of flakes.

[Meat]

SPC adjustable ball joints on the S2000 act simply as a camber plate and offer no additional advantage. It's a 0 point mod.

 

off-topic: who's yellow S2000 is that next to you in your sig? I saw him at Summit Point this weekend and he looked fast. I got some pics of him if he wants 'em

[ninetyfourintegra]

God I wish this board had a killfile/ignore filter.

 

"Foes"

[Markus]

God I wish this board had a killfile/ignore filter.

 

"Foes"

 

Nemesis?

[kbrew8991]

NEMISIS!!!! I will have YOUUUUUUUUUUUU

[ninetyfourintegra]

God I wish this board had a killfile/ignore filter.

 

"Foes"

 

Nemesis?

 

User control panel. Add who you want to ignore as a "Foes" and their posts will not show up.

 

edit: but I can't ignore Ken

You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list.

[Trevor57]

Maybe some guys had rule 16 marked as "foes."

[kbrew8991]

edit: but I can't ignore Ken

You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list.

 

[getfast]

SPC adjustable ball joints on the S2000 act simply as a camber plate and offer no additional advantage. It's a 0 point mod.

 

off-topic: who's yellow S2000 is that next to you in your sig? I saw him at Summit Point this weekend and he looked fast. I got some pics of him if he wants 'em

 

The yellow one is Robrob. The red one is Cale.

[Michael Alsip]

Just had a chance to read things and I figured I'd chime in on this...

 

did you write the rule? no. so you don't know thats what was intended, you're just speculating just like the rest of us.

 

Rules should be clear enough to understand the intention regardless of who is reading it so that there is NO speculation. If everyone out there is "just speculating like the rest of us", something is blatantly wrong with this set of rules. Any rule that is not 100% clear to a 5th grader needs to be re-written. There are certainly exceptions, but 90% of all rules fall under this theory, and of those 90%, I'd be willing to wager that a good majority of them don't fit that criteria and typically leave most of us scratching our heads. Most of the rules are enough to make a good engineer or mechanic cry.

 

There's a huge reason why we have all of these "Class my car" threads. People cannot understand the rules as they are written. We shouldn't have to get clarification on every single rule, guys; they should be clear enough from the beginning to understand to even the newest of competitors.

 

There's so much more in this thread that I cannot agree with, but time limits my responses.

[Meat]

SPC adjustable ball joints on the S2000 act simply as a camber plate and offer no additional advantage. It's a 0 point mod.

 

off-topic: who's yellow S2000 is that next to you in your sig? I saw him at Summit Point this weekend and he looked fast. I got some pics of him if he wants 'em

 

The yellow one is Robrob. The red one is Cale.

 

Duh, I should have realized that. His name was even on the side of the car

 

 

 

 

fullsizes:

[ff2skip]

There's a huge reason why we have all of these "Class my car" threads. People cannot understand the rules as they are written. We shouldn't have to get clarification on every single rule, guys; they should be clear enough from the beginning to understand to even the newest of competitors.

As simple as it may sound, perhaps simply putting Rule #10 & Rule #16 next to one another in the rules versus separated by five other rules might reduce some confusion. I'm guessing when I first started classing my car, I probably saw Rule #10 and thought "I'm good there," and simply skimmed through the rest. Ultimately, I'm responsible for my own actions.

 

As someone mentioned, this is a forum. This is where open discussion should take place. Without regard to the part /rule called into question in this thread, it was nice to read the discussion. I believe I learned something about other suspensions and about those posting in this thread.

[H4CRXSi]

I'm guessing when I first started classing my car, I probably saw Rule #10 and thought "I'm good there," and simply skimmed through the rest. Ultimately, I'm responsible for my own actions.

 

Guys,

 

Rule #16 in the "Suspension/Brakes/Chassis" secion is on page 4 of the TT classification form, which I would *think* would be read prior to getting to Rule #10 of the "No-points Modifications" section on page 5.

 

If some have skipped directly to the "No-Points Modifications" section to see what modifications they *believe* they can do prior to reading the entire classification form then this could be part of the problem.

 

Don't know if this is happening or not, but with all this talk about reading Rule #10 and then reading Rule #16 it leads me to believe that this may be the case.

 

Also, back to what someone was saying about the difference in tires and their points and how the other modifications needed to run some of the +5 or +7 tires, I've been thru this myself and have found that it is just easier to run a +10 tire (Hoosier for me) because if I don't I'll need to add +2 for using adjustable front ball joints on the front end for more negative camber (specifically for RA-1's) and then also adding +4 for adjustable rear upper arms, again for more negative camber (specifically for RA-1's), so in the end it is easier to run a +10 tire which doesn't require as much camber. For reference, my car for this tire discussion in my TTF '99 Civic EX.

 

As always, just my $.02.

 

Regards,

 

Sam

[phoenixR34]

As been said a million times in the past, the bottom line is a competitor needs to read the classing sheet, line by line, then determine te best way to use the points... preferably before building the car. Just tallying up points on an already built car, usually won't net a championship winning car.

 

This isn't news. It gets complicated at times, but it's better than the alternative

[Michael Alsip]

As been said a million times in the past, the bottom line is a competitor needs to read the classing sheet, line by line, then determine te best way to use the points... preferably before building the car. Just tallying up points on an already built car, usually won't net a championship winning car.

 

This isn't news. It gets complicated at times, but it's better than the alternative

 

Two points worth nothing here...

 

First, this method is very uninviting to new competitors. How often do you think the future NASA competitor wakes up and says, "Gee golly, I think I'll get into cars today and the best way to do that would be by joining NASA's TT program. I should probably go and read all of the rules first so some guy on the internet doesn't protest me 11 days later after I asked him to look at my car at the event."

 

Do you really think people do that? I know I didn't, and you probably didn't either. If I had to bet, I'd say you were into cars before you started lapping with NASA a couple years back, and this is not a unique position. It's been said that "Like attracts like" (and around here, I see that to be 1000% true), so it's not like NASA is going to be able to attract Michelle Obama into racing and have her read the rules on day one. The point here is that the people that NASA attracts are typically those who already have an automotive background and a car to compete with, not some newb off the street who has never seen an air filter. I would venture to say that 99% of people fall into this category and are going to need clarification on modifications on their car, like I did.

 

The second thing worth nothing here is that with an unclear rule set, it's ludicrous to think that people will be able to sit around and wait on interpretation from Greg as to whether they're getting points or not. Look at my thread; he was just about unwilling to help me because he wanted me to go to a regional TT director (and when I'm at an event, it's already too late), and I've heard more than one story about how people have emailed him only to never see a response to that email. Whether it be just a general unfriendliness or being too busy to get all of his work done, Greg doesn't always fill the interpretation void that we all have; however, this is neither here nor there as it becomes quite evident from reading the rules that they are certainly unclear, even to people with gobs of technical experience.

 

So, please don't take this as a me vs. you thing where I'm just disagreeing for the sake of it. I really do truly agree that the best way to get things done at this point is by doing exactly what you said, but I don't agree that this should be the best way. Something needs to be done to clarify the points rules. This doesn't mean that they have to become more stringent, but it does mean that they have to become more clear.

[jason]

After fighting through the S**A's rulebook for years, I thought the TT classifications were pretty straightforward. That also taught me it's a lot cheaper to read the rules first, then build the car. And it made the car a lot more competitive.