Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 944 Bump Steer & Camber gain

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2

    Default

    SCCA Spec944 (Basically built to ITS spec)
    '86 944 2.5
    Ride-height ~5"

    Bump-steer is radical - Does IT allow for rod-ends in lieu of OE tie-rod?

    Geometry of lower control arm equally as bad - positive camber gain under compression. Does IT allow for:

    1. Fabrication of control arms using OE mounting points
    and/or
    2. Spacers between ball joint and strut

    I've read the GCR - looking for an interpretation or precedent set.

    Thx

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    114

    Default

    nope and nope-however, re: bump steer. steering arms have know to get bent. sometimes they improve bump steer. phil

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    553

    Default

    Originally posted by pfcs49@Dec 29 2005, 03:20 PM
    nope and nope-however, re: bump steer. steering arms have know to get bent. sometimes they improve bump steer. phil
    [snapback]69500[/snapback]
    I assume aftermarket, OEM geometry arms are OK. Like the chrome moly ones etc.?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Originally posted by JimLill@Dec 29 2005, 01:35 PM
    I assume aftermarket, OEM geometry arms are OK. Like the chrome moly ones etc.?
    [snapback]69505[/snapback]
    Why would you assume that? Aftermarket control arms are not legal, nevermind ones of alternate material. If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

    AB
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    553

    Default

    Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 29 2005, 04:20 PM
    Why would you assume that? Aftermarket control arms are not legal, nevermind ones of alternate material. If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

    AB
    [snapback]69510[/snapback]
    why, wishful thinking I guess....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Understood.....confirmed what I thought.

    This Spec944 class has really taken-off out here in AZ (21 cars, our own group) - I can run in S944 or ITS with very mild adjustments, or even with NASA as they have a 944 class too (very similar).

    Is the value of the 944 being appreciated in other regions?

    Appreciate the input on the suspension stuff.

    Ted

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Danville,Va.
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Originally posted by AZIT@Dec 29 2005, 12:11 PM
    SCCA Spec944 (Basically built to ITS spec)
    '86 944 2.5
    Ride-height ~5"

    Bump-steer is radical - Does IT allow for rod-ends in lieu of OE tie-rod?

    Geometry of lower control arm equally as bad - positive camber gain under compression. Does IT allow for:

    1. Fabrication of control arms using OE mounting points
    and/or
    2. Spacers between ball joint and strut

    I've read the GCR - looking for an interpretation or precedent set.

    Thx
    [snapback]69459[/snapback]
    I have the same problem in E Production as its a LP car. wont let us use hime joints or spacers. You can bend them all you want but unless you change the pick up points it wont change spit. You can work on the housing for the struts but you wont get away with it. Learn to drive with the bump,more toe out in the front helps some. Raise the car back up again HA!!

    lawernce

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •