I've specifically reviewed the rulesets again after seeing those struts on specific Audis (not the RST gang, someone else). My first response was, "Hell, that's not legal!!" (same as I thought when I saw Tom Blaney's front spoiler that incorporated an undertray and splitter). Then I read the rules again, thinking about what they did, and my response was "hot damn, that's clever! And legal" (same as I thought after reading the rulebook in regards to Tom's spoiler....)

See, that's the beauty of that design: they're not relocating any pickup point or suspension mounting point, they're relocating the ball joint in relation on the completely-legal-to-do-whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-do strut in relation to the contact patch of the tire, which happens to improve geometry as the car is lowered. Not only is it legal, it's damned clever.

It's just one of those things that folks who have knuckles integral to the strut, such as the Z-car photo above, can do that the rest of us cannot. Simply IMAGINE trying to police the location of the ball joint mount in that photo above; how'r ya gonna do it? How are you gonna stop someone from mounting the ball joint relative to the contact patch of the tire differently than stock (thus adjusting the roll center, COMPLETELY negating deleterious geometric effects of lowering the car)?

Can't. Won't. Power to ya.


Whoa, really? Do you mean in a manner similar to using bumpsteer spacers between the spindle bottom and the steering arm/balljoint?[/b]
Yeah? Guess what: the Audi *also* incorporates the steering arm *on the strut too*!!! So, guess what: ZERO bump steer.

Most excellent design. Just seeing those struts (and hearing those cars at full-tilt boogies) was enough for me to consider building one. I truly believe that car has scads more potential in it...