|
|
The very fact that people seem to require chassis protectors shows there is something inherently wrong in the first place. Someone in this thread has suggested that without chassis protectors they would need a new chassis every other meeting. Whether this is an exaggeration or not is unclear, but it is clear the problem lies not with this new ruling, but with the drivers themselves.
We got by fine without chassis protectors, you could take a reasonable amount of kerb without them and do no damage whatsoever... after all when two of your wheels are up on a kerb, you are lifting your ride height anyway! So people must be MONSTERING kerbs to do so much damage, and that is their problem! Why should everyone have to buy these protectors because of the select few who take way too much kerb?
A cone on the problem kerb, or some strict COC'ing would be cheaper than both chassis protectors AND damaged chassis's.. it's a no brainer.
|
|
|
