Skunk2 A-Arms?

It's a stock arm with an adjustable ball joint. However the ball joint is not ecentric adjustable, it slides.

BTW, which thread are you referring to my reply? I dont' recall.
 
Originally posted by jlucas@Oct 12 2005, 08:55 PM
It's a stock arm with an adjustable ball joint.  However the ball joint is not ecentric adjustable, it slides.

BTW, which thread are you referring to my reply?  I dont' recall.
[snapback]62474[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


sorry I was just trying to be funny :)

My question was "are they stock" and if you had answered yes then they are legal if you answered no then they are not legal.

And according to your reply it sounds like the ball joint is not stock and has been modified but the a-arm is stock. In this situation the ball joint is not legal but the a-arm is legal.

Stephen
 
ITCS 11 :
"camber adjustment may be achieved by the use of shims and/or eccentric bushings"

So the Skunk arms don't seem to fit this which is why I asked if a judgement (or protest ruling) had ever been made.
 
I believe they are not legal...i had them on my street car and they help alot in set up. I havent heard of any protest for using them and I would assume they would call it a camber plate...but the upper mount is not stock...now im not sure <_< ...anyone?
 
Jeremy - the Skunk2 upper arms that adjust camber through moving the ball joint are not IT legal. The rulebook states (and you quoted) that camber adjustment can only be done through the use of eccentric bushings or shims. I know, I hate it too - stupid rule. Those arms are cheaper than eccentric bushings and easier to use. Do they have any significant advantage over the eccentric bushings? No, I can't see how. They both just adjust camber.

I think that rule was one of those things the IT board came up with a long time ago because they thought it would help keep the costs down. But in todays times, you can achieve camber adjustment easier and cheaper than with those stupid bushings.

I wonder if this is a rule we could get changed. Several other rules have been changed lately that were originally done to keep costs down but just don't hold water anymore.
 
Let me know if I can help. My car is at OPM now no doupt running up a mega $ bill to remove the $200 Skunk arms before the ARRC. I am also running the SSR parts out back for camber and toe adjustment.

Strut based cars can run camber plates, a-arm cars should be able to run the equivalent parts.

Good luck with the letter writing .....
 
You can put me on the list of those that would support the rule change. There is a ton of stuff that is now available for cars (honda/acura) that were not when some of the rules were written 20 years ago. Quite honestly rules like this are what keep people AWAY from racing in IT. ie a kid comes up to me in the paddock and wants to race his "tuned" honda/acura. After asking some questions he learns that the stuff he got from his local tuner shop is not legal. It is highly unlikely that he'll take it off so he can do the same thing some of his "bolt-on" parts already do for twice the cost in labor.

My two cents.


md
 
I also agree, we race 2 cars in SCCA ITA and Honda Challenge H4, for the last year we have been trying to get the people that we compete against in H/C to come out and race SCCA with us but due to the restrictive rules of the SCCA that IMHO add more cost to racing not less I have not had any luck getting anyone to come across and race ITA. So I am also sending off my request to the CRB, I hope everyone that races a Honda or Acura product will do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top