How would one identify the "stock" setting? Is it a location? A camber setting based on a camber gauge?

 

The stock location is a measurement on a stock car that has a fixed upper "camber plate". It will be the centerline location between the 4 mounting bolts of the "camber plate" to the chassis, and where the strut rod (thing with the nut) is in relation to those 4 bolts. It will be different on different chassis. An adjustable camber plate must conform to the stock measurements.

There is a missconception that the stock location is in the center of those 4 bolts. In some cases it may be, but in most it will not be. So, having a camber plate pinned in the center does not necessarily mean it is legal.

 

Regarding camber plates, IMHO they should go by whatever the maximum stock settings are instead of being centered and pinned.

To be honest if you are allowing shocks and springs to be free ... it makes no sense why camber plate adjustments are not free also.

BTW - I talked to Donna Amico this past weekend and she thought the new proposal would pass also ... just weird.

 

The rule is NOT "centered and pinned". The rule is Pinned in the stock location which varies from model to model. This is where many cars have issues in compliance checking by PCA Tech.

The issue is that the stock components are not adjustable and the camber plates must position the damper rod in the same stock location.

 

Like we talked about this past weekend, how would ACCURATELY measure this? There would need to be some universal tool for each model, etc, if not the validity of the measurement is low and readings become operator subjective.

 

The camber plate rule is one of the most poorly thought out rules in PCA racing. The average white student has already put on camber plates to minimize tire wear. At the very least he or she is looking to maximize the negative camber even if aftermarket plates are not used. In a stock class, who in their right mind is going to run stock shocks without camber plates??? At a minimum, you have to go out and buy JIC's and KW's, all of which have camber plates supplied to be remotely (no pun intended) competitive, not to mention remote reservoirs.

In a racing arena that mandates full cages and allows hollowed-out doors for NASCAR bars, not allowing camber plates makes absolutely zero sense.

 

I'm sure the list of "why" is growing every day.

So far, I still don't understand carpet and passenger seat in a race car with a full cage requirement.

But I do agree with Mark (and I am sure most do) that you allow adjustable shocks with remote canisters but no camber plates? That's like peanut butter and no jelly

 

Geoffrey,
I have seen all of public opinion on allowing adjustment, but nothing on why it is curtailed. Can you share any insight as to the why the advisory commitee kept this rule? It did seem like a no-brainer to me too.... Was it truely trying to keep cost down?

 

I am not in a position to say why or why not any of the rules were approved or denied. That is the function of the advisory committee and you may want to contact Donna Amico who is handles the rules. I doubt it is a cost thing given that we allow 4 way adjustable dampers which can cost 10-15k for Ohlins on a 996.

 

Thats great! Exactly what I suggested for the weights. GTB will definitely get stronger this year. And, it will even up my car with that Carrera S...man that thing has some power. As for the doors, you may have to do them in CF or FG to get the weight down that far on a 3.4...but the handling will be terrific on the lighter car.

 

The torsion bar 911s strut tops ARE adjustable for both camber and caster.

I don't have adjustable camber plates, but if I did I guess I could adjust them as far inward as the stock strut mount would go.

 

Anyone have any insight here? Still sitting on the PAUSE button for GTB.

 

Myself and some other GTB guys were asked to give our present weights and suggest weight rules. I think they may adopt something in the very near future. PM your email addy if you want to see what I sent in.