Tom, care to expand on these ""turn-in spacers"? If you're referring to spacers between the ball joints and the strut, or between the steering arm and the strut, and you're not actually modifying the strut itself, then these are not legal in Improved Touring.
For example, on my NX2000 the strut bolted to a cast knuckle (this design is typical for FWD Volkswagens as well). The ball joints and the tie rod end bolted to the knuckles. None of this geometry between the ball joints and/or the tie roads and the knuckle could be corrected legally within the IT ruleset. If you're implying spaces in these cases are legal, then you're mistaken. I sincerely hope you are not currently doing this in IT with the misunderstanding it's legal.
On the other hand, the ITB Audi Coupe has an all-in-one strut/knuckle assembly, where the strut and the knuckle assembly are one. In that case, since struts are free, you have a s**tload of latitude on how the toe rods and ball joints attach to the assembly (and it's a suh-weet setup, too).
Little more detail, please. Specific examples would be useful.
GA
On edit: I found the following after "googling" the term; scroll down for "turn in spacers":
http://www.gforceengineering.net/products.htm
Not being familiar with the Mazda RX-7 design, I cannot say whether this is legal as they claim. However, if the steering arm and/or ball joints do not attach directly to the strut - as is the case in most FWD McPherson strut applications - then these parts are decisively not "IT-legal". Jake? - GA
Bookmarks