Rools question - alignment - stock category

[Rob]

I am running my 02 miata in stock class again this year and I want to do some alignment work soon. I'm working from the 2004 regulations so just hollar at me if this issue is addressed in the upcoming 2005 reg's.

The first paragraph of 6.3. states that "Stock Category cars must be run as specified by the factory with only standard equipment as defined by these Rules." - from this I had assumed that I have to set the alignment within the factory specifications.

But - 6.3.E. ii) states "Both the front and rear suspension may be adjusted through their designed range of adjustment by use of factory adjustment arrangements or by taking advantage of inherent manufacturing tolerances."

In the case of a miata (and most cars I assume), its possible to set the alignment specs well outside the factory specs without modifying any of the parts i.e. "by use of factory adjustment arrangements".

It would sure save a lot of tire wear (and maybe even some time - well maybe not with my driving) if I can run with more negative camber than the factory specs. Any comments/ideas/rulings?

Thanks
Rob

[Wedge]

Only factory specs are allowed in Stock. It doesn't matter how far you can adjust the camber, it must be within factory specifications. This is one of the most important rules in the stock class.
In SS you can adjust as far as the stock adjusters will go. In SP, alignment is open to whatever yoru imagination can conceive.

[holliko]

Originally posted by Wedge
Only factory specs are allowed in Stock. It doesn't matter how far you can adjust the camber, it must be within factory specifications. This is one of the most important rules in the stock class.
In SS you can adjust as far as the stock adjusters will go. In SP, alignment is open to whatever yoru imagination can conceive.

what you said matt but.... why is this more important than any other rule.....

anyways rob... a stock alignment in a Miata is still pretty good... Make sure you get the factory manual and have a good shop do the work so that you can get the max as allowed by the factory specs.... Miatas (m2) have four specs front and back depending upon fender to wheel center measurements.... not all alignment shops are created equal..... so choose carefully...

[gatherer]

like the others said has to be within manufacturers tolerances.

The rules are there for cars that have manufacturers tolerances that are outside the range of adjustability on the vehicle. for example Honda, for the 5th gen civic (92 to 95) has a listed camber for the front of 0 degrees +/- 1 degree well in the stock civic there is no way to adjust that because there is no factory adjustability. so even though I could get -1 degree using other means (non factory) 6.3.E.ii prevents that.

so there are 2 rules at play

1) you have to be within manufacturers specs

2) you can't go outside manufacturers authorized methods of adjustment to achieve number 1

makes sense?

[Rob]

Thanks guys - makes sense.

Rob (or anyone else?) - where can I get my hands on a shop manual? there does seem to be some confusion about what the factory specs are - and I have the sports package from the 02 model year which may make a difference.:confused:

[holliko]

Originally posted by Rob
Thanks guys - makes sense.

Rob (or anyone else?) - where can I get my hands on a shop manual? there does seem to be some confusion about what the factory specs are - and I have the sports package from the 02 model year which may make a difference.:confused:

manual can be found at any mazda dealership for around $150.00 and would be required to prove specs if a protest was ever launched.... It contains all the specs for a stock alignment.... There are no differences on the stock alignment of a base model car and an SE model in the shop manual...
Robert

[holliko]

Originally posted by gatherer
like the others said has to be within manufacturers tolerances.

The rules are there for cars that have manufacturers tolerances that are outside the range of adjustability on the vehicle. for example Honda, for the 5th gen civic (92 to 95) has a listed camber for the front of 0 degrees +/- 1 degree well in the stock civic there is no way to adjust that because there is no factory adjustability. so even though I could get -1 degree using other means (non factory) 6.3.E.ii prevents that.

so there are 2 rules at play

1) you have to be within manufacturers specs

2) you can't go outside manufacturers authorized methods of adjustment to achieve number 1

makes sense?

so jason if a stock alignment in your car allows for 0 to +/- 1 degree and there are no adjustments then why not use a big hammer to take advantage of the manufacturing variance as allowed in the manual.... It would seem to me that you could do this as you haven't modifed anything... You've only done to your car what the factory allows as normal and if you shopped around for another civic you might find a car with -1 degrees already.... Alignments shops would use a hammer to get a factory spec on a non adjustable car if for example you bumped a curb and didn't break anything so why not.... Anyways my opinion and I'm sure many will argue.....

[finboy]

Originally posted by holliko
manual can be found at any mazda dealership for around $150.00 and would be required to prove specs if a protest was ever launched.... It contains all the specs for a stock alignment.... There are no differences on the stock alignment of a base model car and an SE model in the shop manual...
Robert


back in the day.. you were required to have a shop manual on hand for the regional series..

couldn't tell you if its still a required item


:shrug:

[Keith-02Accord]

I have a related question:

What if you're camber is unadjustable, but for whatever reason, it is slightly outside of factory spec. For example, it measures -1.5 degrees.

There is nothing that can be done to fix it, so what would the ruling be?:confused:

[gatherer]

Originally posted by holliko
so jason if a stock alignment in your car allows for 0 to +/- 1 degree and there are no adjustments then why not use a big hammer to take advantage of the manufacturing variance as allowed in the manual....

because a big hammer isn't in the book as an authorized way of adjusting camber. therefore the method is illegal according to the rules

Originally posted by holliko
It would seem to me that you could do this as you haven't modifed anything... You've only done to your car what the factory allows as normal and if you shopped around for another civic you might find a car with -1 degrees already.... Alignments shops would use a hammer to get a factory spec on a non adjustable car if for example you bumped a curb and didn't break anything so why not.... Anyways my opinion and I'm sure many will argue.....

yes but if you hit a curb (I have hit many) in a civic you bend the upper control arm. this gives negative camber in a snap and it's ussually well beyond the factory spec (which requires the replacement of the upper control arm to fix it.

Again the rules say you can have an alignment within Manufacturers specs. the rules also say you have to use Manufacturer approved methods of adjustment so in the Service Manual for your car if it says "hit here with big hammer to correct camber" then you can use a big hammer to adjust. if the Service manual doesn't have this then you can't. The service manual becomes in effect an extension of the rule book for your car. so the rule in the rule book where it states "if it doesn't say you can do something then you can't, still applies.


Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
I have a related question:

What if you're camber is unadjustable, but for whatever reason, it is slightly outside of factory spec. For example, it measures -1.5 degrees.

There is nothing that can be done to fix it, so what would the ruling be?:confused:

Keith,

replace upper control arms and make sure you put them on the correct side.


Finboy,

yes it's still required in the case you get protested. I had a photocopy last year but that wouldn't of held water this year I'll have the manual.

Any other questions.

[Keith-02Accord]

I'm not about to spend a few hundred dollars b/c one side of camber is slightly out.

If somebody actually protested another on that basis, well then we would know where there head is at.

[gatherer]

I didn't say to spend hundreds of dollars, if they are on the wrong sides of the car you will get camber numbers like you stated there ... plus you can get OE replacement ones from aftermarket that are alot cheaper but exactly the same.

[Keith-02Accord]

Ah yes, I agree, but I've never replaced the UCA's.

Anyways, doesn't matter b/c the Accord will no longer be used for Solo 2 this year :)

[gatherer]

hmmm not sure about the accord ... I thought you were speaking of the civic... for the civic it's a 30 minute job tops ... easy to do if you ever need help let me know

[holliko]

Originally posted by gatherer
because a big hammer isn't in the book as an authorized way of adjusting camber. therefore the method is illegal according to the rules




I would question the big hammer thing... anyways i would then purchase, measure and return every upper control arm until you find a set that give you the best +camber possible within factory specs.... That's not in the book either but allowed I'm sure.....
Robert
:cool:

[MrHeavyFoot]

Assuming CASC-OR is using the unadulterated CAC (CNAC) rules, then I don't think you have to be within factory specs in Stock. Factory methods have to be used, yes, but factory specs do not have to be followed.

In 2003, it explicitly said that you had to follow factory specs (5.3.D.v):
The suspension may be adjusted using the method authorized by the
manufacturers only within the manufacturer's specifications for street
use.
In 2004, this section of the rules underwent a lot of changes. The removal of "factory spec" was intentional AFAIK. (5.3.E.ii)
Both the front and rear suspension may be adjusted through their
designed range of adjustment by use of factory adjustment arrangements
or by taking advantage of inherent manufacturing tolerances.
All depends on whether or not you think "factory adjustment arrangements or by taking advantage of inherent manufacturing tolerances" means having to follow factory specs or not I guess.

The're more there than what I quoted, but that's the gist of it. You may want to have your ASN rep get a clarification on this.

(Can, worms, open....)

[finboy]

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
I have a related question:

What if you're camber is unadjustable, but for whatever reason, it is slightly outside of factory spec. For example, it measures -1.5 degrees.

There is nothing that can be done to fix it, so what would the ruling be?:confused:

in my opinion.. its illegal

rules don't care about "why/how much or how pretty you are"

if you're out of spec.. then you're out of spec


if it takes a BFH to fix it.. who cares..

[Wedge]

Originally posted by holliko
i would then purchase, measure and return every upper control arm until you find a set that give you the best +camber possible within factory specs.... That's not in the book either but allowed I'm sure.....
Robert
:cool:

That's just crazy enough to work. There are always tolerances in all forms of manufacturing. So not all control arms will be exactly equal. But I would definately go with a cheap aftermarket brand which is likely to have much larger tolerances. Otherwise there will be very little to gain.

[gatherer]

MrHeavyFoot, you might have a point there....

I'm confused now....

I'd sugguest emailing the solo 2 director for clarification.

[Wedge]

Originally posted by MrHeavyFoot
In 2003, it explicitly said that you had to follow factory specs (5.3.D.v):

In 2004, this section of the rules underwent a lot of changes. The removal of "factory spec" was intentional AFAIK. (5.3.E.ii)

All depends on whether or not you think "factory adjustment arrangements or by taking advantage of inherent manufacturing tolerances" means having to follow factory specs or not I guess.

The're more there than what I quoted, but that's the gist of it. You may want to have your ASN rep get a clarification on this.

(Can, worms, open....)

There's no can of worms. It makes perfect sense if you read the whole paragraph:

If authorized by the manufacturer, the use of shims, special bolts, removal of material to enlarge mounting holes, and similar methods are allowed and the resulting alignment settings are permitted even if outside the normal specification or range of specifications recommended by the manufacturer.

There's the answer. The CAC stock rules regarding alignment are basically the same as our regional Super Stock.

[gatherer]

but Matt, the regional rules have the same wording section 5 of the CAC rule book is our section 6

6.3.E.ii says the same thing...

I just re-read it for about the billionth time.. I so friggin confused...

maybe this was an over sight in the 2004 rule book and will be changed for the 2005 rule book.

[Wedge]

Originally posted by gatherer
but Matt, the regional rules have the same wording section 5 of the CAC rule book is our section 6

6.3.E.ii says the same thing...

I just re-read it for about the billionth time.. I so friggin confused...

maybe this was an over sight in the 2004 rule book and will be changed for the 2005 rule book.

Hey you're right. I never noticed that either.
Sidenote: that is the exact same wording as in the SCCA rulebook. So I would assume that it was not an oversight. Which means I can set as much rear toe-out as I want afterall! Whoo! And that I'm going to have more camber than any of the other HS cars I know of! Hehehe! You're all going down! :p
It also means that SS rule 6.5.E.ii is redundant.

[gatherer]

yes it would mean that rule is redundant...

and in the SCCA stock classes they do run alignments that are within the range of adjustment... I wish I saw this in 2004 it would have made such a difference on the car setup.

don't be too fast Matt to hit the alignment rack the 2005 rules arn't out yet

as for camber... still can't adjust it in a civic, I'll have to come up with something else...

[Rob]

Oyyy... so my question is still open?

Despite the fact that I'd love to crank up the negative camber on my car, it seems to me that the "spirit" of the rule is that a stock car should be limited to the manufacturer's specified alignment tolerances. That's the simplest interpretation of the first paragraph of 6.3.

Also there is still room to play around within the manufacturer's specs, so you can look for an advantage by getting a precise alignment that suits your driving preferences.

Also as Wedge pointed out, the broader alignment range specified for SS becomes redundant if allowed for stock.

Anyhow - looks like I did open that can that Mr. Heavyfoot referred to

...Rob

[Wedge]

Originally posted by gatherer
yes it would mean that rule is redundant...

and in the SCCA stock classes they do run alignments that are within the range of adjustment... I wish I saw this in 2004 it would have made such a difference on the car setup.

don't be too fast Matt to hit the alignment rack the 2005 rules arn't out yet

as for camber... still can't adjust it in a civic, I'll have to come up with something else...

Camber isn't adjustable on my car either. But I'm allowed to use Crash Bolts. Which I still have left over from my Paseo.
But you're right, better not jump the gun.

Wes, we need an official ruling. I see no problem with conforming to both the CAC, and the SCCA rules. :D

[holliko]

Originally posted by Wedge

Wes, we need an official ruling. I see no problem with conforming to both the CAC, and the SCCA rules. :D

I got a ruling last year from Wes and CS allowed factory spec and CSS allowed whatever was possible without modifications... I didn't agree but followed his advice..

[holliko]

Originally posted by Rob
Oyyy... so my question is still open?


Also as Wedge pointed out, the broader alignment range specified for SS becomes redundant if allowed for stock.

Anyhow - looks like I did open that can that Mr. Heavyfoot referred to

...Rob

If this is the case then I'm staying in stock and the new 710's I purchased will see lot's of -camber.... If not then off I go to SS

[gatherer]

Originally posted by holliko
I got a ruling last year from Wes and CS allowed factory spec and CSS allowed whatever was possible without modifications... I didn't agree but followed his advice..

well CS and the rest of stock would be governed by the same ruling ...

personally I hope the ruling is within manufacturers specs because I'm just looking out for myself :p

[finboy]

i really don't get what's up with the replies to the inital question

in a stock class

factory spec is factory spec period


look at a shop manual it will show you what the range of factory spec is.

if one was protested for a non-stock alignment..

whats the issue here??

the specs of the alignment on the car?

or

the method that was used to achieve the results?

to put things simplier...

if you bought brand spanking new tires and had a "custom" alignment done with the existing factory OEM parts, and wore the inside tread to the core

would the tire dealer warranty the wear pattern??

i'd be surprised if they did

vs.

if the car was in range of the factory "shop manual specs"


maybe its just lonely ol me.....

but to me its black and white

[finboy]

Originally posted by Wedge
But I would definately go with a cheap aftermarket brand which is likely to have much larger tolerances. Otherwise there will be very little to gain.


if you did that.. and I was checking over the car, i'd find the car illegal

"larger tolerances..."

put the same argument to another component such as sway bars or springs

if you used aftermarket parts for the reason of saving money
great no problem....

just make sure they are frogs ass tight to OEM specs



rules don't care about the cost of an item.

[Wedge]

Originally posted by finboy
i really don't get what's up with the replies to the inital question

in a stock class

factory spec is factory spec period


That's what I thought as well.
But it's been pointed out that the rules specifically say:

the resulting alignment settings are permitted even if outside the normal specification or range of specifications recommended by the manufacturer

In which case we are allowed to go outside of the factory specs.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
I'm not about to spend a few hundred dollars b/c one side of camber is slightly out.

If somebody actually protested another on that basis, well then we would know where there head is at.


Keithsan..... I think you're missing the point

you can run whatever you want.. but the bottom line is

if your car is not within spec

its an illegal alignment.

proving "intent" or the reason why doesn't matter


eg. you "try" to stop for a stop sign..

a defence of tried or couldn't isn't a defence or an argument

the rule is absolute...

(perhaps that's a poor example)

[finboy]

Originally posted by Wedge
That's what I thought as well.
But it's been pointed out that the rules specifically say:



In which case we are allowed to go outside of the factory specs.

if that's the case.. then ignore my posts

the rule book should then say "alignments are free regardless of class"

(i'm gonna go read the rule book.. hopefully WT, TM or ST chimes in to put things straight)

[finboy]

went to get something to eat.....

anyhow... to my surprise.......

http://www.solo2ontario.com/info/documents/2004solo2rules.pdf

6 3 E ii

first sentence says it all..

as long as you do an alignment with the factory OEM parts on the car.... you're good to go!!!

(that is how I read it)


i'm quite surprised in the wording.... "stock" aint quite "stock"

[finboy]

that second part you quoted.. isn't an exact quote

it has to do with "authorized" MODIFICATIONS outside factory spec

[Wedge]

In any case, I can say for certain that the entire paragraph in question (6.3.E.ii) is a direct copy & paste from the SCCA rulebook, athough a couple unrelated sentences were omitted. And those guys DO allow the alignment to go beyond factory spec.

[finboy]

after reading the rules...

and getting a different definition what "stock specs" are out of my head....


please ignore my posts...

sorry Keithsan..

[finboy]

the FIRST SENTENCE in 6.3 e ii

is the same as 6.5 E II

[finboy]

sorry again....

rob inital question.... stock car, take your car to a good shop and maximize what you can do with your stock alignment (with no modifications/alterations to anything.. whatever the tech can do on the rack)


Keith.. your bent control arm with a wacked alignment..

guilty.. why.. not because of the alignment..but because your control arm has been altered (reason.. doesn't matter it ain't in stock form anymore)


Rob T.. i'd buy Wes T a pitcher.. and discuss things


the alignment issue has changed from back in the day.. i wasn't aware

me bad... rules are soo much easier in modified classes

[13inches]

No date last night Ken-san?

:p

[holliko]

Originally posted by finboy
sorry again....

rob inital question.... stock car, take your car to a good shop and maximize what you can do with your stock alignment (with no modifications/alterations to anything.. whatever the tech can do on the rack)


Rob T.. i'd buy Wes T a pitcher.. and discuss things




no need to buy Wes a beer to discuss alignments I'd just buy him one because of all the work he does for this sport.....
Anyways last year I took my car to a great alignment shop and max'd out my car based on factory spec..... worked for me.....

[tanney]

I have posted the question to the ASN/CAC Technical Advisory Committee for comments and review of the existing wording.....

My take is the same as Matt's orginal post.

Only factory specs are allowed in Stock. It doesn't matter how far you can adjust the camber, it must be within factory specifications. This is one of the most important rules in the stock class.
In SS you can adjust as far as the stock adjusters will go. In SP, alignment is open to whatever yoru imagination can conceive.

I will get specific clarification though and pass it on.

Crash bolts will be allowed in stock ONLY to bring the car within factory spec!!!!!!

Keith, you car would then be illiegal for stock class use (SP) regardless of how silly or expensive it is to fix it. Rules are rules are rules!

[Keith-02Accord]

Originally posted by tanney


Keith, you car would then be illiegal for stock class use (SP) regardless of how silly or expensive it is to fix it. Rules are rules are rules!

So what you are telling me is that if I won HS with a +1.5 on one side and -1.5 on the other, and somebody protested I would be disqualified even thought I'm at a disadvantage with those specs?????????

Like I said, if somebody actually did protest that, I'd know exactly what kind of person they are.

I think some people have lost sight of the "spirit" of the rules.

[13inches]

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
So what you are telling me is that if I won HS with a +1.5 on one side and -1.5 on the other, and somebody protested I would be disqualified even thought I'm at a disadvantage with those specs????????? yup. Are you saying you'd be proud of yourself for winning, knowing that you didn't comply to the rules?


Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
Like I said, if somebody actually did protest that, I'd know exactly what kind of person they are. What kind of person competes in a class when they know they are breaking the rules?

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
I think some people have lost sight of the "spirit" of the rules. The spirit is that everyone complies to the rules. You're right though, some people have lost sight of that.... but you may not have to look very far to find them.....

[Keith-02Accord]

Originally posted by 13inches
yup. Are you saying you'd be proud of yourself for winning, knowing that you didn't comply to the rules?


What kind of person competes in a class when they know they are breaking the rules?

The spirit is that everyone complies to the rules. You're right though, some people have lost sight of that.... but you may not have to look very far to find them.....


Ummmmmmmm Ryan, look at my post again......if I had -1.5 degrees on each side, I would agree with you 1000%, but + on both sides or one side would be detrimental to the handling of the car, not advantageous. In otherwords, if I were to win the class, I'd have done so with a poorer handling car then if it were in manufacturing specs.

Put another way: if it were within specs, I would have won anyway and by a greater margin.

And people ask me why I'm not comepeting in regionals

[tanney]

I highly doubt anyone would protest you at the regional level, but at the same time, rules are rules.

And if this is the reason why you don't compete in the regionals, then our loss I guess.

[13inches]

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
Ummmmmmmm Ryan, look at my post again......if I had -1.5 degrees on each side, I would agree with you 1000%, but + on both sides or one side would be detrimental to the handling of the car, not advantageous. In otherwords, if I were to win the class, I'd have done so with a poorer handling car then if it were in manufacturing specs.

Put another way: if it were within specs, I would have won anyway and by a greater margin.

And people ask me why I'm not comepeting in regionals Keith, I read your post right the first time

It doesn't matter if you are + or - 1.5 degress, you are still outside of what the rules allow. I'm not trying to argue if you would be faster or not.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
Ummmmmmmm Ryan, look at my post again......if I had -1.5 degrees on each side, I would agree with you 1000%, but + on both sides or one side would be detrimental to the handling of the car, not advantageous. In otherwords, if I were to win the class, I'd have done so with a poorer handling car then if it were in manufacturing specs.

Put another way: if it were within specs, I would have won anyway and by a greater margin.

And people ask me why I'm not comepeting in regionals

keithsan.. it doesn't matter why... or if its beneficial or not

if your car is out of spec.. its out of spec

if people protest you because your car is a pig and out of spec.. and know that they were smoked by a lesser car/better driver

then egg on them... NOT YOU


(yes... it was a weird night for me)


tks for looking into this thread WT!!

[Keith-02Accord]

Wes, that is not THE reason I don't do regionals. Mostly, its just a lack of time. But its a weighing factor.

[gatherer]

Keith if I came second it be second with 50 bucks in my hand

Everyone looks at protesting like the protester is a whining cry baby. Protesting the Check sum, it's the system that allows the rules to work. without a valid and working protest process method you don't have a checks and balances system that keeps everyone in check.

for the record Keith I'm have 50 bucks ready every event. not just after the championship because based ont he protest rules it's too late then.


Wes,

I know that the spirit of the rules was to be within Manufacturer's specs (at least everyone I spoke to last year thought it was that way, even I thought so) so maybe it was just a mis-wording and the spirit of the rules are still within manufacturer's specs...

[Keith-02Accord]

Originally posted by finboy
keithsan.. it doesn't matter why... or if its beneficial or not

if your car is out of spec.. its out of spec

if people protest you because your car is a pig and out of spec.. and know that they were smoked by a lesser car/better driver

then egg on them... NOT YOU

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

But I still lose 100 points and they get a 'win'.

[tanney]

Ok, the ASN/CAC Technical Advisory Committee have clairified this and this is the ruling.......

You can do anything with alignment settings in stock classes as long as the correct stock (or OE replacements) components in the correct unaltered locations as specified by the factory service manual are maintained

[gatherer]

wow so it is as written in the rule book.... now I gotta figure out off the wall toe settings for next year :p (only thing I can adjust)

[holliko]

Originally posted by tanney
Ok, the ASN/CAC Technical Advisory Committee have clairified this and this is the ruling.......

You can do anything with alignment settings in stock classes as long as the correct stock (or OE replacements) components in the correct unaltered locations as specified by the factory service manual are maintained

stock class for me then... until suspension goes in.......
Robert

[Keith-02Accord]

Kinda makes this whole debate pointless!!

[finboy]

Originally posted by Keith-02Accord
Kinda makes this whole debate pointless!!

for those who can adjust their alignments outside "factory specs"
it makes things a huge difference



for you.. and your damaged car..

it doesn't apply.. your bent parts can be considered modified
(modifed by curb or BFH = same thing)

[finboy]

Originally posted by tanney
Ok, the ASN/CAC Technical Advisory Committee have clairified this and this is the ruling.......

You can do anything with alignment settings in stock classes as long as the correct stock (or OE replacements) components in the correct unaltered locations as specified by the factory service manual are maintained

tks Wes..

the wording in the rule book needs to be tweeked so its nice and clear



(in my opinion.. the rules should be within factory shop manual alignments.. not whatever the car can be adjusted to with "factory tollerances" )

just my pioneer 3 cents

[tanney]

(in my opinion.. the rules should be within factory shop manual alignments.. not whatever the car can be adjusted to with "factory tollerances" ) I agree, but......

[Wedge]

Originally posted by finboy
the wording in the rule book needs to be tweeked so its nice and clear

(in my opinion.. the rules should be within factory shop manual alignments.. not whatever the car can be adjusted to with "factory tollerances" )


Since we're trying to conform as much as possible to the CAC rules, I don't think it's a good idea for us to start picking and choosing which rules we do and don't like. If we start changing everything around, then we'll end up with something completely different, aka: completely worthless. If that's what we want then we'd be better to just write our own rules from scratch.
But I think most of us would MUCH prefer to have a uniform Canada-wide ruleset. So if we want to have a rule changed or reworded, then it has to be changed for all of Canada. I really don't know how difficult it would be to do something like that...

[gatherer]

Originally posted by Wedge
Since we're trying to conform as much as possible to the CAC rules, I don't think it's a good idea for us to start picking and choosing which rules we do and don't like. If we start changing everything around, then we'll end up with something completely different, aka: completely worthless. If that's what we want then we'd be better to just write our own rules from scratch.
But I think most of us would MUCH prefer to have a uniform Canada-wide ruleset. So if we want to have a rule changed or reworded, then it has to be changed for all of Canada. I really don't know how difficult it would be to do something like that...

try telling all the regions moving away from CAC in favour of SCCA rules.

[tanney]

I really don't know how difficult it would be to do something like that.. That depends on what it is. There are dozens of small changes to the 2004 and 2005 CAC rule book that were instigated from this message forum, discussions in this region and my personal comments. We have representation on the committee that makes these decisions.....

I made the decision to move to the CNAC rules in Ontario for the 2004 season to help reunify the country's Solo 2 rules, much to some competitor's disappointment. No matter which direction we go, there is always someone (or group of someones) that isn't happy. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, until you hop the fence, that is, then it looks greener on the other side again.

[finboy]

i can live with the alignment ruling.. whether i agree with it or not.. (factory spec vs. factory adjustable tollerances)

that wouldn't be my beef....




it's the wording that should be clear for everyone across the board

the wording in 6.5 E ii is nice and clean (it should be used for the stock class)


the wording in 6.3 E ii should be point and shoot as well

[MrHeavyFoot]

Originally posted by gatherer
try telling all the regions moving away from CAC in favour of SCCA rules.
Even larger can, worms, open..... :D

[Wedge]

Originally posted by tanney
That depends on what it is. There are dozens of small changes to the 2004 and 2005 CAC rule book that were instigated from this message forum, discussions in this region and my personal comments. We have representation on the committee that makes these decisions.....


That's cool. It's good to know that our voices are heard. And that the "powers-that-be" really do care about the little competitors like us. :)

[tanney]

Even larger can, worms, open..... Hey, with how many classes, 57?!?!?, everyone that shows up for regional events can win their class. If we had 200-250 competitors and cars out to every event, SCCA rules might make more sense, but with less than 100 cars, more than 25 classes is just silly. We are dealing with all kinds of underfilled classes as it is, could you imagine more classes?

[gatherer]

Wes,

I think we shouldn't even consider the possibility however with that said Quebec, Alberta and BC have all decide to move away from the Unification of rules effort and go their own way (deciding to use SCCA rules)

it be nice if ASN steped in and unified the rules to a national standard.

anyways that can of worms is a whole new topic (I shouldn't have opened it up)

[tanney]

Bang, bang, bang....... That would be the sound of my head against the concrete block wall in my office...... Will someone please pad the walls in my cell, (oops I mean office).

At least one Ontario club run their events with SCCA rules as well. My attempt at unification apparently failed miserably.

[MrHeavyFoot]

Originally posted by gatherer
Wes,

I think we shouldn't even consider the possibility however with that said Quebec, Alberta and BC have all decide to move away from the Unification of rules effort and go their own way (deciding to use SCCA rules)

it be nice if ASN steped in and unified the rules to a national standard.

anyways that can of worms is a whole new topic (I shouldn't have opened it up)
Whoa camel.....

Alberta as a whole (nor WCMA for that matter) is not discarding CAC rules in favour of SCCA rules. One club (CSCC) has decided to add the SCCA SM/SM2 classes for their club championship.

I don't have a problem with a club wanting to augment the CAC classes with something that suits there local needs. Running SM/SM2 is one way to do that. CASC-OR running street tire classes is another way to do that.

That said, I don't think adding the SM/SM2 rules was the best idea, but its up to the individual clubs how they want to run their local championships.

[gatherer]

ok thats my mistake then

[MrHeavyFoot]

Originally posted by gatherer
ok thats my mistake then
No problem. Others have made the same mistake before, so I feel the need to jump in and correct it ASAP.

[Rob]

Ok, the ASN/CAC Technical Advisory Committee have clairified this and this is the ruling.......

Wes, thank-you for getting us a clarification on this. I appreciate your time spent on this.

Time for more alignment research!

Rob

[gatherer]

Eevrryone in stock is doing research now