GAC Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Greg, Several other guys that I've spoken with want to know what the final ruling is going to be here, since there is no specific reference to caster adjustment being assessed points. MOST of us at the beginning of the season believed that the term "camber plates" was generically being used to refer to camber/caster plates. If we can't run caster beyond factory specs, many of us will simply choose to run more static camber, but what is the offical ruling going to be? Caster adjustment at the plate is different from running caster bushings for instance, which give you more caster as well as reducing bump steer. The suspension pickup points remain the same for most camber/caster plates, as they utilize the same factory strut top mounting holes. Let us know. Thanks! FINAL RULING IS HERE: http://www.nasaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=7534 Edited May 15, 2006 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I think McPherson strut cars are at an inherent disadvantage to begin with , but FWIW, I've only known adjustable upper strut mounts to include caster adjustment, thus the name "caster/camber plates" and not just "camber plates". I would suggest adding an amendment to the rule which charges points for adding caster, but 1) that should be inherent with the addition of C/C plates and 2) that'd be very difficult to enforce. *throws hands up in the air* I'm just glad I don't have to worry about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
860TTC Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 This is another area for me, all Mustang owners, and many other cars. One change adds up many points in different categories! To add coil over shocks in the front you need caster/camber plates. Then, if you lower the car you need a bump steer kit and maybe new steering rack bushing. The points just keep adding up! Don't even ask about a torque arm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusTed Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I have a question on this as well. We will have some PT Spec Focus cars that will have both types of camber/caster plates. For what was said on the REVISED rules these top two camber/caster plates would cost points. Even though they are off-the-shelf retail camber plates that have slots that offer caster adjustment. What if these plates can go outside of factory specs??? But, How much would caster cost?? 12 points?? I believe Camber is worth twices as much as caster, then at the most this should cost is 1 point, if that. Also some of these plates you have to cut the strut tower... will this cost points? The only way I can get neg 3 camber in the Focus it to cut it strut tower. Now I do know these do not adjust for caster, and caster does stay within spec even though you could move it around slightly inside the grove, and I don't have to cut the strut-tower, which is what the revisement was about. Suggestions. You can call them Camber/Caster plates and keep them at +2 You can have Camber plates at +2 and add +1 for any caster adjustment outside of Factory spec as long as you don't cut the strut tower. and maybe add 2 points if you have to cut the strut tower for camber/caster plates. +12 seems too high for caster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure Energy Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 You can call them Camber/Caster plates and keep them at +2 +12 seems too high for caster. I vote for adding the word Caster to the rule. You are already taking points for moving your alignment out of stock specs, why should you have to keep caster in stock spec? How could this be enforced anyway? +12 is way too much for caster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raysingh Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Yeah, I think this rule applies specifically to TTE cars that are currently running in TTF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted May 15, 2006 Members Share Posted May 15, 2006 Yeah, I think this rule applies specifically to TTE cars that are currently running in TTF. Hmmmm..... Just might could have something there. Yup. Uh-huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Yeah, I think this rule applies specifically to TTE cars that are currently running in TTF. ... and TTD cars that are running in TTE, and TTC cars that are running in TTD, and TTB cars that are running in TTC, and TTA cars that are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted June 4, 2006 Members Share Posted June 4, 2006 ... and TTD cars that are running in TTE, and TTC cars that are running in TTD, and TTB cars that are running in TTC, and TTA cars that are... Nope, just a TTE car that runs in TTF mainly. Doesnt matter, I wont be at BW next weekend. Just got the new pistons in today for the motor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusTed Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Now I do know these do not adjust for caster, and caster does stay within spec even though you could move it around slightly inside the grove, and I don't have to cut the strut-tower, which is what the revisement was about. Is NASA going to check each car at Mid-Ohio with camber plates to make sure they are with in Spec?? I'm pretty sure the camber plates in our SF cars fall with OEM specs because you can't move the caster at all. Also when are you going to do inspections? because if you have caster adjustments you could be in spec during inspections, but changed afterwards..... kinda of like ECU programing, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted July 11, 2006 Members Share Posted July 11, 2006 Why would you have caster/camber plates and NOT take advantage of the added caster you can get, especially ona FWD car? To me, if you have a set that does both, then why not a small point assessment for it? I have a set of camber plates, thats all they can do. If I choose to use them, then good for me. Its sort of getting into the how much can you spend/spend category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted July 11, 2006 National Staff Share Posted July 11, 2006 One issue is that there are many cars that don't have a large aftermarket parts market providing camber plates that don't have a slight adjustment (or possible adjustment) for caster. This includes a very large number of cars that actually participate in TT and PT, and it includes plates from some of the most well known companies. So, the decision to continue to allow them, without an additional assessment (especially mid-season) as long as the caster is kept within factory specs, makes the most sense, and is the most fair way of dealing with this issue, and follows the "intent of the rules" guidelines. So, the question really is, how much do we assess for "simple" caster changes that are past factory specs. The current rules would imply +12 for relocated suspension mounting points, which is not a fair assessement. While camber plates and camber/caster plates allow for movement of a single suspension mounting point in a single plane (two dimensions), actual relocation of suspension mounting points can take advantage of multiple sites, and in 3 dimensions. Caster changes out of factory specs should not be free either. Afterall, if those changes are worthless, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The current thinking is for a +2 assessment for changes in "simple" caster past factory specs with the use of camber/caster plates. I'll let you know about a final ruling within a week or so. And Ted, we can dyno, inspect, weigh, or take a car to an alignment shop anytime we want at the Championships. We can seal any part we choose to seal for later inspection as well. And, we can redo any of the above at a later time after an initial inspection if we choose. Random and unannounced inspections are the plan, in addition to visual inspections of each car and classification sheet. Those with camber/caster plates should probably keep their latest computerized alignment sheet with them if they have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Why would you have caster/camber plates and NOT take advantage of the added caster you can get, especially ona FWD car? To me, if you have a set that does both, then why not a small point assessment for it? I have a set of camber plates, thats all they can do. If I choose to use them, then good for me. Its sort of getting into the how much can you spend/spend category. I'll give you an example of why you wouldn't take advantage of the adjustability: What if you blew a tire at Nationals and the only available tires were Hoosiers and you were running toyos before. All of a sudden you need to find 2 points... if you have a set of C/C plates (even if they can adjust both), but you choose to run a factory alignment, you shouldn't be awarded ANY points. And I'd like to add that the competitor shouldn't be awarded any points for strengthening the mounting point since the factory upper strut mount is normally solid anyways. Also, the factory upper strut mount can be elongated to allow for extra C/C adjustment... what are we doing about this? That'd be a far more pressing issue on my mind since it is further away from the intent of the competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted July 11, 2006 National Staff Share Posted July 11, 2006 Why would you have caster/camber plates and NOT take advantage of the added caster you can get, especially ona FWD car? To me, if you have a set that does both, then why not a small point assessment for it? I have a set of camber plates, thats all they can do. If I choose to use them, then good for me. Its sort of getting into the how much can you spend/spend category. I'll give you an example of why you wouldn't take advantage of the adjustability: What if you blew a tire at Nationals and the only available tires were Hoosiers and you were running toyos before. All of a sudden you need to find 2 points... if you have a set of C/C plates (even if they can adjust both), but you choose to run a factory alignment, you shouldn't be awarded ANY points. And I'd like to add that the competitor shouldn't be awarded any points for strengthening the mounting point since the factory upper strut mount is normally solid anyways. Also, the factory upper strut mount can be elongated to allow for extra C/C adjustment... what are we doing about this? That'd be a far more pressing issue on my mind since it is further away from the intent of the competition. Who says that the factory upper strut mount can be elongated without taking the +12 for relocated suspension mounting points (adding the third dimension I discussed above)? It certainly doesn't say that it's legal in the rules, so it's either illegal, or +12, unless it has been given a waiver for some reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusTed Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Okay, We should bring a print out of our adjustments on the car, and at anytime NASA can check the alignment. So, it could be like NASCAR the car could be legal (no points) before any session, but become out of alignment during the session and be forced to take points, correct??? Also what if you have to cut the strut tower to mount these plates to get any adjustments?? Do you take any points for that??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Toyota allows use of 3 different bolts between the strut and spindle on the front via one of thier T.S.B.s on MR2s the smallest allows a large range of camber adjustment am I required to take points for this, even tho Toyota says this is what you need to do to align the car to your liking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted July 11, 2006 National Staff Share Posted July 11, 2006 I don't know how the alignment (caster) would become out of alignment during a session, barring a hefty shunt, unless you mean that someone changed it before going out--but that sounds about right. I suppose that it would depend on how much cutting was done whether it would be ok or not. If we decide to make Caster adjustment out of factory specs +2, and someone cuts the top of the strut tower to put on "camber-only" plates, but moves the plate rearward to gain caster, there would be an assessment. If someone was to cut and alter the height of the location of the plates, then the +12 assessment would be the likely outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted July 11, 2006 Members Share Posted July 11, 2006 Also what if you have to cut the strut tower to mount these plates to get any adjustments?? Do you take any points for that??? Wouldnt this fall under "Modifying mount locations?" If I use camber plates with spacers on my car, I would have to machine the small metal lip off my strut tower to fit, but the location wouldnt change. SO many options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat L. Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 So Greg, the upper struts on my other mustang (drag car) have really sloppy mounting holes. Would that mean I'd take 12 points since I could effectively alter the mounting point of the strut? If so, you might have a lot of guys needing to take 12 points. My point earlier was simply that while everyone's attention is on how to resolve one issue (which we all thought was resolved), a real loop hole may exist with folks taking zero points by not running CC plates. FWIW, I agree with the current bandaid - taking the points for camber only assuming caster settings are within factory spec. BTW, You can tell me to shuddup whenever you want seeing as how none of this really effects my dual a-arm setup, with it's perfect geometry and ultra-light unsprung weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted July 11, 2006 National Staff Share Posted July 11, 2006 So Greg, the upper struts on my other mustang (drag car) have really sloppy mounting holes. Would that mean I'd take 12 points since I could effectively alter the mounting point of the strut? If so, you might have a lot of guys needing to take 12 points. My point earlier was simply that while everyone's attention is on how to resolve one issue (which we all thought was resolved), a real loop hole may exist with folks taking zero points by not running CC plates. FWIW, I agree with the current bandaid - taking the points for camber only assuming caster settings are within factory spec. BTW, You can tell me to shuddup whenever you want seeing as how none of this really effects my dual a-arm setup, with it's perfect geometry and ultra-light unsprung weight Pat, I would interpret your sloppy Mustang holes (Pat, you are such a cowboy) to be a +2 mod for camber if the caster was within factory specs, and the height of the strut tower was OEM. Shawn, I suppose you would need to define what you mean by spacers. I wouldn't be so concerned with you removing the lip on the strut tower to fit plates that sit directly on the tower, but adding spacers brings that third dimension of movement into play, and really begins to head to +12 land. Also, I wouldn't recommend you removing that lip, because my understanding is that it is a vital component to the structural integrity of the strut tower. And, I would hate to hear that your strut tower pooped out because it didn't have enough lip on it. Oh, and Pat, you can keep talking about this subject, but we don't want to hear about your perfect geometry and ultra-light unsprung weight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FocusTed Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Okay what about Camber plates that changes the ride height? I know in SCCA Showroom Stock you can't use Camber plates that change the ride height... but since TT and PT allows just about everything (including Blue SRT4 ) Would it cost points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted July 11, 2006 National Staff Share Posted July 11, 2006 Okay what about Camber plates that changes the ride height? I know in SCCA Showroom Stock you can't use Camber plates that change the ride height... but since TT and PT allows just about everything (including Blue SRT4 ) Would it cost points? Those would be heading into the +12 direction for moving the mounting location of the strut in three dimensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Shawn M. Posted July 11, 2006 Members Share Posted July 11, 2006 Shawn, I suppose you would need to define what you mean by spacers. I wouldn't be so concerned with you removing the lip on the strut tower to fit plates that sit directly on the tower, but adding spacers brings that third dimension of movement into play, and really begins to head to +12 land. Also, I wouldn't recommend you removing that lip, because my understanding is that it is a vital component to the structural integrity of the strut tower. And, I would hate to hear that your strut tower pooped out because it didn't have enough lip on it. Its a poor mans way to raise the mounting point of the strut up about an inch. Its a fairly common mod done on VW's without weakening the strut tower. Don't worry your pretty little head about that! Like these. They still mount to the top of the strut tower. The other option is to build shorter shocks. ($$$$$$) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbrew8991 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Toyota allows use of 3 different bolts between the strut and spindle on the front via one of thier T.S.B.s on MR2s the smallest allows a large range of camber adjustment am I required to take points for this, even tho Toyota says this is what you need to do to align the car to your liking? am I supposed to take the points hit for additional camber in this situation? thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Greg G. Posted July 12, 2006 National Staff Share Posted July 12, 2006 Toyota allows use of 3 different bolts between the strut and spindle on the front via one of thier T.S.B.s on MR2s the smallest allows a large range of camber adjustment am I required to take points for this, even tho Toyota says this is what you need to do to align the car to your liking? am I supposed to take the points hit for additional camber in this situation? thanks! Yes, otherwise known as "camber bolts" +2. Glad you are coming to the Championships. 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.