Perhaps because of the inherent flex there is a point of diminishing returns on suspension upgrades. If I was able to keep the front end from flexing I would most likely get a better performance gain from better front suspension bushings, higher spring rates and or course the more expensive shocks that would require.
The unintended consequences of what seems like a logical change can be quite far reaching.
Wow
What a load of crap. How do you stay out of jail with an attitude like that?
The guy {Tom} in the beginning of this discussion needs to be in SP.Dan
PRODUCTION???![]()
NO WAY!!!
To be honest I'm using IT as a stepping stone. If I am still obsessed with racing for another 6 years the next car I get will be purpose built. No stamped steel or unibody for me. Give me a tube frame, fiberglass and raw HP.![]()
Lord, won't you buy me a fast SPO
My friends all drive Formula, that ain't the way to go
Worked hard all my life, can't save any dough
So Lord, won't you buy me a fast SPO
Thakew, Thakew virra much![]()
There is probably no question that many of the cars we race are losing something in performance due to chassis flex but that may not be all bad. Perhaps because of the inherent flex there is a point of diminishing returns on suspension upgrades. If I was able to keep the front end from flexing I would most likely get a better performance gain from better front suspension bushings, higher spring rates and or course the more expensive shocks that would require.
The unintended consequences of what seems like a logical change can be quite far reaching.
Ummm, yes, errr, no, welll, maybe.
As for the strut bar- there are a dozen things I'd love to do to my 1st gen RX-7 to make it better. But I built my car specifically for SCCA ITA/IT7 and I accepted the limitations when I built it. Sometimes the rules stink...but we can't just keep changing them to suit each car. A lot of big changes have happened in the last few years and I believe lots of people are having to spend serious money to stay competitive...(for instance I am now legislated to 114 pounds over minimum weight instead of the 14 lbs over I built the car too...some day I'll have the money to drop about 40 pounds but for now I just have to take the hit).
Kevin Bailey
WDCR IT7
We had this discussion (in the VW forum) over the winter.
My recollection is that no one could show where in the rules the permitted modification was limited to two connection points. Maybe I mis-remember. I'll see if I can find the post.
This being said my car for the most part is legal. There may be some vestigial street parts that have not made it back on the car yet and won't until I get a little closer to being competitive. Even still I'm 60# overweight and at 6'2" and 190# this driver can only lose so much weight.
But with a strut tower brace, we are not talking about a high-dollar item. This isn't bitching about why I can't have, say, a $2K Brembo big brake kit to combat persistent fade issues on my 29XX-pound Mustang. (And believe me, I could use an upgrade over my pitiful 11-inch front rotors!)
If a potential modification can be had cheaply, why not allow it?
That's what I remembered.
I found the previous discussion.
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22974&highlight=eurosport
I always thought it HAD to be two connection points, but that is not what the words in the rule say.
Regardless, we hashed and rehashed it a bit in that thread.