226 replies to this topic

[Todd Lamb]

Oh now I have to agree with Dewhurst too? Yeah cost to rebuild is about the same as a new shock so....

[Jim Drago]

Oh now I have to agree with Dewhurst too? Yeah cost to rebuild is about the same as a new shock so....

So let me sum up.. 

we have Scheiffler, Lamb and Dewhurst all in agreement?  There is hope for the middle east yet

[Tom Hampton]

No there's not. Hell just froze over.

[FTodaro]

So let me sum up.. 

we have Scheiffler, Lamb and Dewhurst all in agreement?  There is hope for the middle east yet

In trial work, when something significant happens, so we can dramatize the point, we yell "Mark the record" your honor.

[Steve Scheifler]

Sorry to bust up the party but I do not agree with Dewhurst, who as usual has his facts all jumbled up. The shocks are readily available for under $100 each F&R. Lamb is obviously his shill.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Happily, opening, an aperture or gap, especially one allowing access.

 

Tamperproof seal, surly Bilstein/Mazda could implement. As Koni did for the SCCA Solo Spec class.

 

KONI Sport shocks and struts were selected for the SCCA Solo Spec Coupe class due to their wide range of user adjustability and robust design. The dampers are dyno-tested to ensure equal performance prior to shipping. An all-weather, tamperproof seal is installed by the manufacturer to comply with the class rules.

 

Ok, cool......

 

1. Outside of the seal, how do you prove it has been opened?  "Aperture or gap" is un-enforceable.  Language would need to be way tighter.  You can not tell externally by look today that a shock that has been modified has been tampered with.  When they (FC and others) put it back together it looks just like it did before it was pulled apart.  No evidence of being opened.

 

2. If the seal is your answer, what is your proposed process for getting 3000 cars existing shocks sealed?

 

3. Who pays for this service?

 

4. What in your opinion would be an acceptable turn around time from what I can only assume would be Bilstein?  I assume your not proposing anyone other than Bilstein would have seals.

 

5. How quickly would it take effect?  

 

On your last point about the Koni shocks.   If you are suggesting a brand new shock for the class that would be sealed from the manufacturer (Koni/Bilstein etc) do you believe we should only do the shock, or should we matching the springs to said new shock?

 

Do we then look at bars at that point as well?

 

Sean

[Bench Racer]

How about we take this one step at a time and see where we go.

Ok, cool......

 

1. Outside of the seal, how do you prove it has been opened?  "Aperture or gap" is un-enforceable.  Language would need to be way tighter.

 

Are you suggesting ^ the SCCA SOLO Spec Coupe class tamperproof seal does not function as intended? 

 

You can not tell externally by look today that a shock that has been modified has been tampered with.  When they (FC and others) put it back together it looks just like it did before it was pulled apart.  No evidence of being opened.

 

C. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS The following items represent the only modifications and safety items permitted and/or required on Spec Miata automobiles other than safety items as required in Section 9.

 

​Where is a specification within the GCR/SMCS which allows anyone to open/modify/change a shock to anything other than as delivered by Bilstein?

 

​Are you suggesting FC or another can change the shock bump, rebound rate without changing remaining piece part measurable/visuals when shocks are taken apart? Bilstein surly has specific dimensions (or compare parts) for each piece and an assembly process for each piece with in the shock. 

 

​Why when viewing the FC Bilstein OEM shock testing video of bump and rebound (9 shocks) are the SCCA bump and rebound Maximum numbers a MUCH wider spread than the tested shocks reality numbers? The much wider spread of the bump, rebound specification would be an error from day one.

 

​Is the latest shock specification in addition to the old specification? If the old specification remains it would be advantages to all Spec Miata owners to have the old specification identified within the SMCS.  

 

Sean

 

David

[Peter Olivola]

David, the SSC tamper proof seal is irrelevant.  How many SSC cars are there?  The tamper proof shock for SSC has been part of the spec from the beginning.  What you're implying is that every SM competitor would have to get their shocks sealed or replaced with sealed shocks.  You theory fails on logistics and cost.

[Bench Racer]

Peter, your positive input to improve the Spec Miata shock rule would be?

 

Do you believe the existing shock rule specification since at minimum year 2011 is the best the rule could have been? Please keep your answer straight forward, yes or no and defend your position.

[Peter Olivola]

Your presumption is quite amusing.  My input is to adopt the revision as presented in Fastrack.  It will have the least intrusive and least expensive impact on the class.  That's in opposition to the notion that adopting a sealed, shock would accomplish anything other than a logistical and cost irritant to competitors.

 

Peter, your positive input to improve the Spec Miata shock rule would be?

 

Do you believe the existing shock rule specification since at minimum year 2011 is the best the rule could have been? Please keep your answer straight forward, yes or no and defend your position.

[LarryKing]

sur·ly
ˈsərlē
adjective
bad-tempered and unfriendly.
"he left with a surly expression"

[Bench Racer]

Do you believe the existing shock rule specification since at minimum year 2011 is the best the rule could have been? Please keep your answer straight forward, yes or no and defend your position.

Peter, how about answering the other question? 

[Steve Scheifler]

Who friggin cares and what difference could it possibly make now???

[Peter Olivola]

Thank you, Steve.

 

Who friggin cares and what difference could it possibly make now???

[dstevens]

Video I recorded today, interview with an SM racer with 10 years experience in the class:

 

Does this guy have a name?  Like I said in the other thread you lucked out on the bump stop deal and now you're trying to sole source shock rebuilding?  GMAFB...

 

If you're so sold on your product take Jim up on his challenge.

[Brandon]

Your presumption is quite amusing.  My input is to adopt the revision as presented in Fastrack.  It will have the least intrusive and least expensive impact on the class.  That's in opposition to the notion that adopting a sealed, shock would accomplish anything other than a logistical and cost irritant to competitors.

 

Incorrect - you have to presume that all competitors know the provenance of their shocks for this rule to be the "...least intrusive and least expensive impact..." This is a dangerous presumption considering there is not a mechanism for any competitor to verify without the expensive tool necessary to remotely confirm compliance. And this is without any spec being posted to compare against.

 

Implementing a sealed shock, of the same specifications currently in place to alleviate any Bilstein development time, would be a logical approach.

Other classes have implemented a progressive transition of parts/components before, why couldn't we?

 

Presumptions here:

Bilstein releases the shock at the end of 2018, the rule for a 24mo transition goes into effect 01/01/2019 with all unsealed shocks being non-compliant at the end of the day 12/31/2020.

 

Whether people are replacing them every 2-5 years (if that's all they're doing is swapping because it's not cheaper to rebuild, amirite), this conceivable only accelerates an average replacement by 12 months.

[Peter Olivola]

Incorrect - you have to presume that all competitors know the provenance of their shocks for this rule to be the "...least intrusive and least expensive impact..." This is a dangerous presumption considering there is not a mechanism for any competitor to verify without the expensive tool necessary to remotely confirm compliance. And this is without any spec being posted to compare against.

 

Implementing a sealed shock, of the same specifications currently in place to alleviate any Bilstein development time, would be a logical approach.

Other classes have implemented a progressive transition of parts/components before, why couldn't we?

 

Presumptions here:

Bilstein releases the shock at the end of 2018, the rule for a 24mo transition goes into effect 01/01/2019 with all unsealed shocks being non-compliant at the end of the day 12/31/2020.

 

Whether people are replacing them every 2-5 years (if that's all they're doing is swapping because it's not cheaper to rebuild, amirite), this conceivable only accelerates an average replacement by 12 months.

 

I disagree.  Having the entire class purchase sealed shocks is considerably more expensive and time consuming.  On top of that added expense will be the additional cost of sealing the shocks.

[Bench Racer]

I disagree.  Having the entire class purchase sealed shocks is considerably more expensive and time consuming.  On top of that added expense will be the additional cost of sealing the shocks.

Not a  friken penny comes out of your pocket and any decision has zero impact on your life. 

[Brandon]

I disagree.  Having the entire class purchase sealed shocks is considerably more expensive and time consuming.  On top of that added expense will be the additional cost of sealing the shocks.

 

Then the implementation of this rule is not to ensure improved compliance or a mechanism to enable verification of perceived non-compliance. Ignoring the fact this rule will cause people to spend money is the epitome of willful ignorance.

 

Implementing the rule, as written, will be an expense to anyone who hasn't replaced their shocks themselves with 'fresh from the box' components.

Because if you don't know what you've got installed, you best be certain to do it before 2018.

 

And don't even consider having them refreshed anywhere as there isn't a mechanism to ensure the service's refresh doesn't put your component "out of spec" and subject to confiscation after Bilstein's analysis.

 

Oh, and if you go to sell the car when you're ready to move on, be sure to discount your price by $800-$1000 to cover the cost of the new owner to replace the shocks because who would take the word of any Joe off the street about their legality. I certainly wouldn't. Unless they were sealed and/or verified (or verifiable) in some fashion.

 

I don't have a problem buying a new set of shocks (I need to replace my bushings anyway), however publishing a rule, such as it is, has unintended consequences that haven't been discussed or reviewed thoroughly to the best of my knowledge and what's been shared here.

[av8tor]

I am just trying to bump this thread - it is amazing how long and hard we can beat this horse. 

One would think a stricter re-wording would be a warning from the club and then you collect a couple of shocks at regionals from ea region, exchanged of course, and send them off to tech.  If they fail the offender pays for the inspection and the new shock he was given, if it passes, the innocent victim exchanges shocks again and the process continues.