PDA

View Full Version : CNAC Suspension Rules


ToyotaAutoXer
09-09-2003, 06:02 PM
I did some searching about whether or not I (along with most other Super Stock competitors) could use my coilovers under the CNAC rules. This is what I found: coilovers are allowed within Super Stock classes under CNAC rules: http://www.vcmc.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000013;p=
Current Rule Number: 6.4.E.d.i

Rules To Be Changed: Springs must be the same type as original (coil, leaf, torsion bar, etc.) and use the
original attachment points. Spring perches must remain in the factory location

Change To Read: Springs must be the same type as original (coil, leaf, torsion bar, etc.) and use the original
attachment points. Ride height may only be altered by suspension adjustments, the use of spacing blocks, leaf
spring shackles, torsion bar levers, adjustable coil spring perches, or modification of springs. This does not
allow the use of spacers which alter suspension geometry, such as those between the hub carrier and lower
suspension arm. Springs must be of the same type as the original (coil, leaf, torsion bar, etc.) and except as
noted herein, must use the original spring attachment points. Coil spring perches originally attached to struts
or shock absorber bodies may be adjustable. Spacers are allowed above or below the spring.

Author's Intent: The original interpretation under the 2000 CACC rules was incorrect and motives for this were
selfish and did not present any facts backing up the reasons for the non-allowance of threaded adjustable spring
perches.

One of the main reasons was cost. This is not true that a threaded perch system is significantly more costly
than other means of altering ride height. A review of current pricing of basic Ground Control systems shows a
very reasonable cost structure.

Ease of adjustability: The claim was made that thread perches could be adjusted between heats to gain advantage.
Given the complexity of suspension tuning, any adjustment done between heats and on site would yield
inconclusive/inconsistent results. If adjustability was truly a concern, then the same argument could be applied
to the prohibition of adjustable shock absorbers in Stock and SuperStock categories.

Availability: The argument was presented stating that coil-over kits were not widely available. This is now not
the case in the performance aftermarket. In fact, cars such as the Fiat X-1/9 can only be modified using
threaded spring perches as no other aftermarket alternatives exist.

It follows also that the current rule is inconsistent whereby cars utilizing leaf springs may change mounting
and locations via flip kits and/or shackles when such devices fit under the definition of a spring perch.

ToyotaAutoXer
09-09-2003, 06:07 PM
In case your wondering why the 2003 still has the old wording:

"Hi folks. Well, I'll have to take the blame for the mistake. During the voting, I had a copy of all the rule
changes and was writing "Pass" or "Fail" in the margin and recording any corrections or changes to the wording
of the proposed rule change. When it came time to edit the rulebook and include the 2003 rule changes, I found
the word "Fail" in the margin for the coilover rule....soooo...that's why it wasn't included.

A green sheet will be mailed out to the licence holders and a correction will be posted on the CACC website in
the Rules section.

Sorry for all the confusion."

Oliver Brett
CACC Solo Director
CACC Rules Committee

gatherer
09-09-2003, 06:57 PM
my understanding was that the rule book on www.cnacsolo.ca was the national rules. am I incorrect?

roooo
09-09-2003, 09:17 PM
Oh boy .. more differences from SCCA ruleset ... :confused:

Chris P
09-09-2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by roooo
Oh boy .. more differences from SCCA ruleset ... :confused:

Acutally its quite different then the SCCA rule set, one is there is no SS in SCCA and CNAC doesn't have a Prepared.............however i actually prefer the CNAC since prepared in a obsolite class IMO

roooo
09-10-2003, 02:11 AM
Yeah I agree with that, too. SS is a nice intermediate step up to SP, and the SCCA Prepared class is no longer really relevant.

Now where is the real most up-to-date version of these CNAC rules to give them a good read-through? (I grabbed the ones off the CNACsolo.ca website)

It's just odd because a lot of the rules seem to be indentical to SCCA and then there is the occasional one such as this threaded-perch rule that has for some strange reason been changed from the SCCA version. For anyone wanting to compete in Ontario/Canada and SCCA as well this will cause problems when getting a car set up.

Marsh
09-10-2003, 04:05 AM
Wow Murray, you've got tanicty! Are you sure you shouldn't be in engineering? A lesson to us all, never tell a starving student he has to spend more money.

Unfortunately Gathere is right. CACC is west coast. CNAC is nationals. But at least there is one other region in favour of this. Maybe with Ontario pushing (I hope the most populus province carries SOME weight on the national rule comitee) we can push the change through nationally.

gatherer
09-10-2003, 09:04 AM
the rules on the www.cnacsolo.ca site were used for this year's nationals in red deer. therefore I'm thinking that they are the most current.

any idea when the rules committee meets for the national rules? and /or how to get involved. even though I run in stock class I'd like to see fairier rules in regards to coilovers.

tanney
09-10-2003, 09:35 AM
any idea when the rules committee meets for the national rules?

I have already have touched based with the rules person and will contiune to have dialog with him concerning the current rule set.

The Solo 2 Workshop (to be announced VERY soon) is the forum in Ontario to bring up the concerns and then the represenative(s) from Ontario will deal with the rest of the regions to make suggestions and have discussion about the specfics and make desicions from there.

All in good time!