2011/12 Rule Update Update Poll

[Loren]

With the recent rule updates that were approved, there are now two clarifications that need to be made.

First, is the question of what we want to call our "less-modified" classes. We used to call them "production", but a lot of people refer to them as "stock". Even Grand Poobah Steve has the tendency to call them "stock" as they're the closest thing we have to stock, yet Jamie insists that "production" is a more valid term because the cars don't fit his vision of stock. Most of us really don't care, but I'll put it up for vote to put the question to bed.

Then there's the question on where to place the camber limit in "stock" classes. The new rule as-approved stated a limit of 1.5 degrees of negative camber. It turns out that some cars are capable of achieving more than that (and even within their factory specified alignment range). We may want to consider changing that limit so that those cars aren't forced to a modified class due to an alignment that is standard for their car.

There is some detailed discussion here if you haven't already read it.

Please vote!

[Jeremy]

I like Stock, but don't like the confusion with SCCA stock. I voted stock anyway though, it's just easier to say.

[Loren]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it.

Really, "production" is an SCCA Club Racing category... and it's nowhere near "stock", either. Neither term really fits, strictly speaking. But "stock" works for me.

[Jamie]

...Jamie insists that "production" is a more valid term because the cars don't fit his vision of stock.

I just pointed out potential confusion with a popular set of classes in another club. I insist on nothing.

[twistedwankel]

Assuming you can actually read the attached alignment specs for a 2004 RX8?

I am not knowledgable of such things.

It is stated plus or minus 1 degree front and rear.

-1degree 44' Rear Camber and -0degree 45' recommended for normal driving specs well within what Loren has repeatedly stated UNDER 1.5 degrees

My only "ignorant" question is with the plus or minus 1 degree does that make -2degree 44' a factory acceptable camber for the rear of an RX8? Not that it would be something anyone would want to do!!

At least it does prove the Mazda factory recommends no more than -1degree 45' in the front in a really good handling "factory" stock performance car.

[jev61]

Assuming you can actually read the attached alignment specs for a 2004 RX8?

I am not knowledgable of such things.

It is stated plus or minus 1 degree front and rear.

-1degree 44' Rear Camber and -0degree 45' recommended for normal driving specs well within what Loren has repeatedly stated UNDER 1.5 degrees

My only "ignorant" question is with the plus or minus 1 degree does that make -2degree 44' a factory acceptable camber for the rear of an RX8? Not that it would be something anyone would want to do!!

At least it does prove the Mazda factory recommends no more than -1degree 45' in the front in a really good handling "factory" stock performance car.

Doug,
if I'm reading that correctly, Mazda is saying up to -1.45 front / -2.45 rear is within factory specs. My book says -1.32 front / -2.14 is within spec for a 99 Miata. I don't think Mazda is saying no more than, but that it should be possible with OEM springs. I couldn't get to -1.32 in the front of my car, but I wish I could (-1.45 would be even better).

Joe

Joe

[Loren]

The way Mazda spec's camber on Miatas (and apparently RX-8's) is at a particular ride height. Since their suspension designs cause camber to vary greatly with ride height, this makes sense. (What doesn't make sense is a full 2 degree spread in tolerance!)

Now, I don't know what the "typical" stock ride height is for an RX-8, but that "1.44 +/- 1" spec is at a specific ride height that I'm betting is lower than most stock cars would see. I would expect that the bottom three specs are probably the more common ride heights on stock springs.

The way they measure ride height (fender lip to center of hub) is completely independent of tire and wheel fitment, so it is set by springs, shocks and the weight of the car. The ride height will decrease as springs sag over time and shocks lose their gas pressure over time, and when you add 75 pounds of amps and subwoofers in the trunk.

[jev61]

The way Mazda spec's camber on Miatas (and apparently RX-8's) is at a particular ride height. Since their suspension designs cause camber to vary greatly with ride height, this makes sense. (What doesn't make sense is a full 2 degree spread in tolerance!)

Now, I don't know what the "typical" stock ride height is for an RX-8, but that "1.44 +/- 1" spec is at a specific ride height that I'm betting is lower than most stock cars would see. I would expect that the bottom three specs are probably the more common ride heights on stock springs.

The way they measure ride height (fender lip to center of hub) is completely independent of tire and wheel fitment, so it is set by springs, shocks and the weight of the car. The ride height will decrease as springs sag over time and shocks lose their gas pressure over time, and when you add 75 pounds of amps and subwoofers in the trunk.

That is correct, the camber spec is for a certain ride height. When Dan Rasp aligned my car, he ignored the factory recommendation. Instead he adjusted the front until he got the maximum amount of camber equal on both sides and then adjusted the rear a -.5 more (less?, I forget how you express math).

Mazda lists a ride height from 12.9 to 14.8 inch front and 13.7 to 15.5 inch rear for a 99 Miata. They only used two different springs during the 1999 model year; a Normal or Sport S (aka soft) and the Hard S (aka 10 AE or Sport Package). It was the same in 2000; then in 2001 they changed springs. I can't tell what they changed, except they have different paint dot codes and give you a very different ride height if you use them in a 99. Guess how I know?

With those two different 99 springs, they also used two different shocks; black Showa's for the Normal suspension and yellow Bilsteins for the Hard S suspension. The Bilsteins raised my son's 2000 Miata up enough to easily clear a set 24 inch tall 195/65R14s tires that replaced his old 22.7 inch 185/60R14 tires.

[twistedwankel]

RX8 = Never have aligned this car since I got it as it tracks a straight as an arrow with no unusual tire wear. I also won G Stock with these settings so changing it would have "unwon" the class probably?

I measured and front tonite is about 15" with a lame ass tape measure = -0-06' camber according to chart. Which is probably correct as old front tires wore as flat as Kansas clear past the wear bars making them officially "slicks".

Back is about 14.2" = -1-44' camber according to chart. Which is probably correct as the rears wore at a slight angle of a couple degrees(?) until I rotated them all to grind them flat again. No clue on toe or Caster? Must be okay as it turns corners pretty well and doesn't follow highway cracks.

I got new full depth wider/stickier tires and didn't get an alignment. Nor will I any time soon:) Unless the "camber guy" proves me "modified" Will save alignment money for some day when I (absolutely have to) replace the original shocks.

The guys out here in Hernando County can't even get my 86 Mustang steering wheel straight in less than two tries. They normally only do Massy Fergusons and Jeeps.

Doug

[BigBlue]

The surveyor in me saw a couple things that may or may not matter to your discussion, but I think you may be mixing apples and oranges in some of your comparisons. If mazda is using degrees-minutes (a single ' is a minute of arc, a double " is a second of arc.), that is different than the decimal degrees that I think Loren was using in his original example. The mazda number of 1 degree 44 minutes would be 1.733 degrees in decimal format. That would mean that if Dougs rear camber is 1 degree 44 minutes, it would be 1.733 degrees in decimal format and would fall into 'modified' under Loren's original 1.5 degree limit.

[Loren]

The surveyor in me saw a couple things that may or may not matter to your discussion, but I think you may be mixing apples and oranges in some of your comparisons. If mazda is using degrees-minutes (a single ' is a minute of arc, a double " is a second of arc.), that is different than the decimal degrees that I think Loren was using in his original example. The mazda number of 1 degree 44 minutes would be 1.733 degrees in decimal format. That would mean that if Dougs rear camber is 1 degree 44 minutes, it would be 1.733 degrees in decimal format and would fall into 'modified' under Loren's original 1.5 degree limit.

Yeah, totally brain-farted on the minutes-to-decimal conversion. You are correct.

[twistedwankel]

The mazda number of 1 degree 44 minutes would be 1.733 degrees in decimal format. That would mean that if Dougs rear camber is 1 degree 44 minutes, it would be 1.733 degrees in decimal format and would fall into 'modified' under Loren's original 1.5 degree limit.

Thanks for that clarification Ron. I had no idea what those numbers meant.

Guess the "camber guy" will be busy in Sept then scoping out the Mazdae, et al?

My old fixed axle Stang is looking better and better all of a sudden.

Doug

[BigBlue]

Just think of a clock. There are 360 degrees for the full circle. Each degree can then be divided into 60 minutes and each minute into 60 seconds. Sixty seconds = one minute and 60 minutes = one degree. If you have degrees-minutes and you want to get decimal degrees, just divide the minutes by 60 and that is your decimal degree value. (ie: 44 divided by 60 = 0.73333333333333333)

As to your alignment, it looks like the magic number is going to be 2 degrees, so you have another 0.266666666666666 degrees to play with. (Or 0 degrees and 16 minutes if you like. ) You're good to go.

[twistedwankel]

Awesome. Thanks again.
I'll keep this page marked for future reference as that's good dope.