Are these legal
- Thread starter seamus88
- Start date
When they first came out, some people screamed, "Relocated suspension pick-up!" but I don't think that position held up under additional consideration. Problem is that we don't have a system that proactively demonstrates when something is strictly, actually legal in this game - only when it is not...
K
K
Well, you are asking the right question - that's for sure. You can see how the issue came up. Notice for the record that I'm not as willing as others (coughGregAmycough) to just say, "Yes - they are legal."
I think that the issue is more nuanced than that and unfortunately may stay vague until it gets tested by the protest process.
K
I think that the issue is more nuanced than that and unfortunately may stay vague until it gets tested by the protest process.
K
Right, I keep forgetting: we've got to be extremely verbose and detailed in our reponses. Sorry for my brevity.
However, to facilitate this debate, if redesigned spherical bearings can be considered "alternate bushing material" then I suggest those upper spring/shock mounts can be considered as such as well.
Hey, I didn't stick the camel's nose under the tent, I'm simply pointing out the obvious nostrils...feel free to argue amongst yourselves...
However, to facilitate this debate, if redesigned spherical bearings can be considered "alternate bushing material" then I suggest those upper spring/shock mounts can be considered as such as well.
Hey, I didn't stick the camel's nose under the tent, I'm simply pointing out the obvious nostrils...feel free to argue amongst yourselves...
The part that I was refering to was the one in the top picture.This application there is no strut.This piece replaces the spring/shock mount.As far as I know it has no effect on the spring location it just raises the shock mounting point upward.This saves having the shock custom made or shortened.My concern is that it is a shock not a strut if you read the rules there is a difference.I want them to be legal. I am just not sure!
[This message has been edited by seamus88 (edited April 01, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by seamus88 (edited April 01, 2005).]
A shock is a suspension component. Moving its mounting point is "moving a suspension attachment point". It is not a strut suspension. what more information do you need to be "SURE"?
------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry
I assume the original poster is talking about the damper cap on his link and not the camber plate which is for strut equipped Civic/RSX.
Here's my 2 cents. The shock attaches to the body via the 3 studs on the damper cap. Those points don't change so the "attachment point" has not been changed. The damper cap is part of the shock assembly and therefore open.
------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
I see. So you're saying it's permanently attached?
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Originally posted by Geo:
I see. So you're saying it's permanently attached?
I wasn't even trying to go that far with it. Maybe "open" was too strong of a word. The damping rod is not a suspension pick up point, there is no alteration to the geometry of the car. Is putting in a shorter than stock race spring considered altering geometery? Nope, and neither should this.
------------------
Jeremy Lucas
Team Honda Research
Kumho - Cobalt - Comptech
I'm not saying these are or are not legal. But I absolutely don't buy the argument that this is the same as running short body dampers. Dampers are open (with certain specified limitations), but the mounting pieces is another issue. So, the question is, are the mouning pieces open as well?
I guess that answer depends upon how strictly the rule book is interpreted by the tech crews and ultimately the COA.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com