So you are saying, make a rule based on the design difference of suspensions, that favors one design over the other,Will Kalman wrote:Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.
then
re-class the cars that get the short end of that rule.
How about just reclass the cars that are camber limited & save adding another rule to the book?
People make choices, if they choose to buy and autox a camber challenged car, why is it the job of the SEB to "equal it out" for them?
So far as burning up Hoosiers in 20 runs, come you, you guys have been around long enough to know that was going to happen. I burn up a couple of sets of the big Hoosiers a year with a car that can get plenty of camber. When that gets to be a problem for me I'll take up surfing or fishing. How much is bait?