226 replies to this topic

[Tom Hampton]

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

'Tis the season!

[Sean - MiataCage]

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.

 

That is just simply not accurate or fair.   The SMAC has discussed this at great length and have looked at all of the possible outcomes of each of our decisions and how it will effect all of competitors in the class and not just the fast ones. 

 

I am not, can not and will never support forcing 3000 competitors to go out and replace an existing part they own simply to put a seal on it.   The amount of people who will ever get a shock teched is minuscule at best outside of a competitor to competitor protest.   The rule is adequate as written but some don't read so well (pun intended) so we are going to make it easier for them to read.

 

The rule is the same as it always has been..... Nothing is changing except clearing up and making it more obvious for those that choose to try and ignore it.

 

You can NOT legally go in to the shock and make any adjustments today and you will not be able to do so tomorrow.

 

This is just not that freakin complicated..... 

[Brandon]

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. 

 

Did someone say beat?

 

[Peter Olivola]

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.

 

Then you haven't read this thread thoroughly.  The reasoning was laid out.  The unintended consequences argument needs to be detailed.  Otherwise, it's little more than a variation on the "because safety" red herring.

[Brandon]

Then you haven't read this thread thoroughly.  The reasoning was laid out.  The unintended consequences argument needs to be detailed.  Otherwise, it's little more than a variation on the "because safety" red herring.

 

Sorry, said reasoning was not laid out from my thorough read. I've found no comment in the thread that referenced the reason for this rule change other than an attempt to reinforce the stipulation "no internal modifications" - IIDSYCTYC. Which begs the question of the unintended consequences that you're poo-pooing as "no one has to spend money" that we're calling BS on.

 

No one ever has to spend money unless they want to risk being found non-compliant on a shock they don't know the sourcing of.

[Brandon]

That is just simply not accurate or fair. 

 

I'll give you "not fair" (as most of the deliberations up to this point are confidential) but "not accurate" will need some further clarification, IMO.

All I'm asking for is consideration to support some method of a compliance check, whether by Bilstein or SCCA, that a competitor can receive an assurance their parts are compliant.

 

If there have been discussions regarding this capability that haven't been shared accept my apologies for presuming not.

 

No one here is insisting on "3000 competitors" replacing their shocks but unless you've removed from the box & installed them yourself there exists the potential for being non-compliant. What recourse does someone have besides replacing them?

[Tom Hampton]

This is so exciting, I'm going back to reading the list of celebrities recently accused of harassment. Who's up next? Madonna or Sean Penn?
 

[Sean - MiataCage]

I'll give you "not fair" (as most of the deliberations up to this point are confidential) but "not accurate" will need some further clarification, IMO.

All I'm asking for is consideration to support some method of a compliance check, whether by Bilstein or SCCA, that a competitor can receive an assurance their parts are compliant.

 

If there have been discussions regarding this capability that haven't been shared accept my apologies for presuming not.

 

No one here is insisting on "3000 competitors" replacing their shocks but unless you've removed from the box & installed them yourself there exists the potential for being non-compliant. What recourse does someone have besides replacing them?

 

Bilstein will be happy to do a compliance check for you.  You can send your shocks into them and they will dis-assemble and inspect for you.   The problem is that they will likely be charging you more for the inspection that what a replacement shock would cost you.  If you are that concerned about it, then I would sell your existing shocks on this or some other website for a discounted rate then just go an buy new ones.  That will eliminate your concern of not knowing the history of your shocks.

 

How many times have you ever been asked to have a shock teched?  Outside of some big events, it just isn't going to happen, so I feel like you are worried about something that will never happen.   Again, if you think it might, then send them in for inspection or replace them whichever you prefer.  You have choices.

[BNaumann]

Can I slot the lower shock mount for more bump stop clearance?

[Tom Hampton]

just remove the lower shock mount bolt. Fasteners are free.

[BNaumann]

Size of that hole needs to be published in the GCR so I can make sure a previous owner didn't modify it.

[Bench Racer]

Existing Spec Miata Shock Rule:

https://dk1xgl0d43mu....pdf?1432140720

New Spec Miata Shock Rule:

2. #21854 (John Bauer) Shock Spec Data Review Add to 9.1.7.C.3.a.1.: 1. Shocks (including internals) must be as delivered by Bilstein/Mazda. No modifications to the compression and/or rebound forces are allowed.

 

Ralph, Sean, Todd or SMAC/CRB, do we now have two shock rules as posted within this post?

 

David Dewhurst

[Peter Olivola]

Sorry, said reasoning was not laid out from my thorough read. I've found no comment in the thread that referenced the reason for this rule change other than an attempt to reinforce the stipulation "no internal modifications" - IIDSYCTYC. Which begs the question of the unintended consequences that you're poo-pooing as "no one has to spend money" that we're calling BS on.

 

No one ever has to spend money unless they want to risk being found non-compliant on a shock they don't know the sourcing of.

Sean laid it out quite clearly.  You're free to disgree with the reasoning or even ignore it, but it's there.

 

If everyone has to pony up for new shocks, under your proposal, how is that not more expensive?  It's beginning to sound like you doth protest too much on the issue of possible non-compliance.  

[Bench Racer]

Come on Peter, you believe you've got this all covered, does Spec Miata have both the old and new rule of only the new rule.  

[Johnny D]

Isn't this why they're doing the new rule ??

 

It says use the shocks.

 

Then you follow IIDSYCDIYC
If it doesn't say you can do it (in the rules) you can't

 

I'm assuming the spec was a reference, maybe the numbers from the factor which may have made things confusing, number to meet, etc.

 

And now they're being clear. Don't f with it.

 

J~

[Steve Scheifler]

Brandon, how many of those people today who don’t know for certain that their shocks are compliant, are sending them in to compare with the existing specs? If I believed it was more than a very few I might be a little sympathetic. But the fact remains that the only real change proposed is enforcement. If a shock will be non-compliant after the proposed changes then it is non-compliant now. The only difference is that if checked in tech it is more likely to be caught. Your argument seems to imply that if tech learns of a common cheat they have been overlooking for years they can’t change their inspection methods because it would be unfair. We’ve certainly never claimed THAT before. If your only concern is lack of specs, send them to the manufacturer. Are you sure that none of the trans & diff gears have been REM’d? Spindles bent? Etc, etc, etc... I’ve been trying real hard to see your point but I just can’t get there.

[Bench Racer]

I'm assuming the spec was a reference, maybe the numbers from the factor which may have made things confusing, number to meet, etc.

J~

Johnny, in your sentence above, did you mean to use the word factory? If yes, I'd would suggest the numbers in the current shock rule are not Bilstein factory numbers.

[Peter Olivola]

Come on Peter, you believe you've got this all covered, does Spec Miata have both the old and new rule of only the new rule.  

 

(Scratching head trying parse this into something, anything, that makes sense.  Oh, well, guess I'll just have to rely on the GCR, Fastrack and GCR updates as things progress.)

[Johnny D]

Johnny, in your sentence above, did you mean to use the word factory? If yes, I'd would suggest the numbers in the current shock rule are not Bilstein factory numbers.

 

Yes, factory.

So why the spec/numbers ??

 

You may not want to say " I'd would "  either

 

J~

[Craig Berry]

I am asking these questions out of ignorance, so please do not pile on... my education is finance, not engineering and definitely not shocks.
We have a spec shock, and I know my cars have had the corners taken off many times to have the shock dyno'd during tech....my question is has anyone ever been found with a non-compliant shock? If this goes back to INDY, I think the non compliance was where or how the shock was mounted, not the shock it self. Please let me know if I am off base. With E Street, we bolt on new shocks out of the box, and the few times we exhausted every handling option, out of frustration, we bolt on new shocks. I guess I am confused by this thread. I did not know this particular part of the car was a cheating problem, but respectfully please educate me.