Originally posted by dickita15+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dickita15)</div>
First, Kevin, I believe that I have read here in the past that the type of suspension that a car has is considered in the process and one of the adders/subtractors in the classification process along with other small things such a tranny ratios, weight distribution and such. I think most people would agree that the typical Honda double A arm is better for racing that the average strut setup.[/b]
I don&#39;t know if things like that are considered; Andy would know better. I also agree that the Honda double A-arms work quite well. But that was not my point. My point was that good examples and bad examples of handleing can be found in many different types of suspension designs. I just don&#39;t believe it&#39;s fair to categorize that one type will 100% of the time perform better than another design. That was my only point, that&#39;s all.

Originally posted by dickita15@
Second and this is a honest question. Can you achieve adequate camber settings with eccentric bushing or would you like more. In other words are the adjustable ball joints really just a cheap and easy way of doing the same thing or are there more gains to be made by allowing them
I don&#39;t believe so. I know for my Integra you can buy eccentric bushings that will range anywhere from -1.5 to +3.5 from factory settings. Lowering my car to its current height naturally gave the car about -2 in the front. So figure upon lowering, eccentric bushings should give up to -3.5 in the front. I&#39;d have a hard time believing that you&#39;d ever need that much, let alone more. As for the adjustable ball joints, I have no idea what their range is. They are not currently legal, so I never fealt the need to look into them.

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
And the "Not availble from the factory" arguement is at best a red herring. Were Hoosier tires? Any bushing material? (Which is also used to relocate suspensions, and has been since the begining of IT time, even when using the "pure" reading of the word material to restrict materials to Delrin, etc). How about hollow sway bars? And well, there are tons of things the factory didn&#39;t put on the car that we run daily.
Agreed.

Originally posted by lateapex911+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lateapex911)</div>
And any rejection of this request has NOTHING to do with hating Hondas. If that were the case, would Hondas hold so many records and win so many events? The ITAC looks at things from a big picture view, and isn&#39;t concerned with the manufacturer.[/b]
Again, agreed.

Originally posted by lateapex911@
In short, every car has its plusses and minuses.....but I&#39;d have to say that the Integra is not short on plusses, and deals with it&#39;s minuses very well.
I still think that we&#39;re missing the point in this respect. I don&#39;t understand why this conversation comes back to the competitiveness of the cars it may or may not affect. We&#39;re not talking about giving double A-arm cars anything that they do not already have. Can they already adjust camber? Yes. Is the range of the adjustment they can currently obtain more than enough? Well, I can only speak for the Integra and IMHO, yes, it is. So how is this dealing at all with pluses and minuses in respect to on track ability? Nothing additional is being asked for that will do anything for on track performance than is already available. All that is being asked for is an easier, cheaper way of doing it.

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
Also, Evan, you maybe missed my point about car A AND car B having the same suspension design......but that car B can&#39;t get the el cheapo moog offset ball joint. If car A gets them legally, Car B now HAS to get them...or go backwards....which means custom fabbing.
I understood your point, but not the affect. As I said above, what is being asked for will not give any additional on track performance ability than what is already available to all doube A-arm cars. All that would happen is that the owner of "car B" will be standing over the shoulder of the owner of "car A" in the paddock as he adjusts camber and says "Damn, that looks easy." It&#39;s the same thing I currently say when I see MacPherson strut car owners adjusting their camber in the paddock, so you can&#39;t argue it as being a good or bad thing since the condition it would create already exists between other cars (which again, would have nothing to do with on track abilities!).

Originally posted by lateapex911+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lateapex911)</div>
Not to mention the double camber amount now available when using both methods for car A...which, even if it&#39;s not needed, is a bad allowance.[/b]
As I said above, at least for the Integra, more than enough negative camber the car would ever need can already be achieved through eccentric bushings. It&#39;s not a matter of performance, but a matter of ease and cost.

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
I think this is a classic unintended (bad) consequences situation and clearly rules creep.
Could you elaborate more on this, please? Maybe I am missing your points as I&#39;m just not seeing it. Thanks, Jake.