Some, or maybe lots of race teams, could do it easily. But, lots of others don't have the right tools and talents to do it the right way. They will do a poor job that could be dangerous for their safety and their competitors. Teams that could do those changes will evolve and improve their performances at the racetrack. But teams that can't do those changes will drop in their results. This means the car count would, and should, drop also. By the way, less competitive race cars don't improve racing.

Respect rules during the season. Have discussion about the rules after the season. If you consider your rule change costs nothing and will help to make racing better, you should be ready to show a "Manual Guide" on how to do this change, with diagrams and measurements. And, if you can't deal with the rule set from your racing division, maybe this is because you're not in the right racing division.
Magella Brub

Thanks for your input.
You're right in some respects. Racers will need to improve their knowledge base in order to know what changes to make, even if those changes can be done with simple tools. But isn't that what racing is all about?

If we remove innovation and experimentation from racing, then we have spec racing with cookie-cutter cars. I'm strongly opposed to that idea. I'm tired of catering to lazy racers who complain because they might have to put a little effort into the pursuit of racing knowledge and would rather stifle the efforts of more innovative teams.

Racing has always been about experimentation, craftiness, finding secret ways to make more horsepower, tuning the chassis and components so that the car goes faster through the turns. I truly believe that a vast majority of racers don't want more rules restrictions, but less. If it doesn't cost much, then let it happen and let the chips fall. My suggestion to racers who don't like that is to find a spec type of racing where you will be comfortable knowing everything is equal, like Legends cars or similar types. Then everybody will be happy.

Independent Sprint Car Suspensions
Dear Bob, I read with interest your most recent article in Circle Track about Sprint Car setups. It's a very good start to covering Sprint Car tech in CT. I got to thinking about your ideas with experimenting with the basic design in the future and a few ideas came to mind.

Sammy Swindell ran what was called, I believe, a 'coil car' back in the late '80s, early '90s which I initially thought used a split front axle pivoting in halves much like a swing axle. I dug into my archives last evening and Swindell's car was a true independent front end (double A-arm), utilizing push rods to inboard mounted coilovers (sound familiar?). The steering was via a shaft through the injector stack, supported by a Heim at the front end and then a flex cable to the steering rack, not all cable.

The car is in the May '89 issue of Open Wheel magazine. The design looks good to me, except for the steering system. I sure don't like the flex cable to the rack. But I can't think, off hand, of a better way either. The rear used a Z-link setup with the standard rear torsion tubes replaced by a single tube with a shaft running through it and arms (the shaft may have been split) on each end to act as the rear bottom links with conventional radius rods on top of the birdcage running forward. I only saw this car once in person.

You might want to contact Swindell and get his thoughts on his experience with this "radical car" for the time. Sam speaks softly, but when he talks, it's usually a good idea to listen. Another example of a successful independent car was the Don Edmunds car. I can't remember if he made a Midget, Sprint, or both. Keep up the good work!
Ralph Stevens