So are we not going to talk about the new/pending shocks rules then?

Yes, factory.

So why the spec/numbers ??

 

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

 

J~

First, someplace along the way someone asked what the owner of FatCat MotorSports name is. Shaikh Jalal Ahmad and I'll admit I've talked with him a couple times since we've implemented his bump stop assembly. Rather than jam the $hit out of this guy, we should all be thanking him for the excellent bump stop assembly he provides, or today 5X Racing supplies. Newbies may not have a clue what I'm referencing. Within some of his videos he does talk down to people, not real professional. Shaikh, even we members of the SCCA get a canned response for a letter sent to the Competition Racing Board, Thank You For Your Input. I kind of laugh when people bust his chops and I wonder if there's some jealousy over his phone consult costs. 

Johnny, after reading the original Spec Miata rule specification bump and rebound limits and watching a couple FatCat videos let it be suggested the rule specification bump and rebound limits did not come from Bilstein factory specifications. I will not suggest who came up with the rule specification bump and rebound limits because I don't have a clue who did. The rule specification limits and something from the factory would be soooo different, watch a FatCat video to come to grips with what I'm saying. Some of the limit numbers are double what reality is for a specific factory number taken from the variance of shocks tested.  For whatever reason there are specification limits within the shock rule and from my perspective that leaves a door open to play with a shock within those limits. Ya, I get the IIDSYC, YC rule. There also is no rule which specifies the water bottle shall be half full or totally full. Some people run a thermostat and some people run no thermostat. It would seem over the years tech or non tech, caught or not caught there have been more shock houses than FatCat whom have played within the rule specification limits. I'd bet some of our regular posters have been involved in one fashion or another. 

Craig, shocks and shock adjustments (doing whatever internally) is an individual drivers preference, unless someone is being directed by another person. I could explain further from other drivers I know who use a shock setup that's crap to the next guy or vise versa. As explained to Johnny above the rule specification bump and rebound limits allow creativity within those limits to a drivers feel and like or dislike. Has anyone been caught with naughty shocks, one person comes to mind from a few years ago. Someone told me recently about a car feeling a certain way and he thought the shocks may be naughty. You bet there's shocks out there that have gone from being nice to naughty. 

Peter, being your being coy, might a suggestion be made you haven't read the rule limit specifications and watched/listened to a FatCat video and put fiction variance and fact variance together. I'd call the rule specifications fiction variance and FatCat test variance specifications fact.

Being I don't have a clue what's said via SMAC phone cons I'd suggest the SMAC didn't believe the original shock rule was enough to keep people out of the shocks, hence a new rule. Otherwise, why a new rule. Had the new rule been in place instead of the original rule, we'd not be having these communications.  

 

Peter, being your being coy, might a suggestion be made you haven't read the rule limit specifications and watched/listened to a FatCat video and put fiction variance and fact variance together. I'd call the rule specifications fiction variance and FatCat test variance specifications fact.

 

 

Thank you for your input.

 

 

Being I don't have a clue what's said via SMAC phone cons I'd suggest the SMAC didn't believe the original shock rule was enough to keep people out of the shocks, hence a new rule. Otherwise, why a new rule. Had the new rule been in place instead of the original rule, we'd not be having these communications.  

This would have been more than adequate to summarize...and I agree

10 pages over a clarification on a part that gives no discernible advantage.
Can’t wait until we talk about rules on socks.

Dont let that victory go to your head Michael! 

10 pages over a clarification on a part that gives no discernible advantage.
Can’t wait until we talk about rules on socks.

Black socks are cooler than white socks. Fact. Cool = Fast. Do need to ban black socks?  #BlackSocksMatter

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.  

Sean's reply didn't come until AFTER your comment...nice try.

You're falsely presuming competitors did NOT optimize their components to the posted limits.

Irrespective of the IIDSYCYC, services were offered to optimize the shock to what was supposedly being checked in tech. Yet after this year's Runoffs it was apparent there isn't a mechanism within the GCR to actually enforce those values and instead of reviewing the totality of the six, going on seven, years of this specification being posted, the proposal is to claim "as delivered" and no effort to enable competitors to check for compliance.

Yes it's getting pedantic and nit picky (and I doth protest not - it's simple logic when rule changes are proposed) but this is racing and regardless of purported gains, competitors will pull out all the stops in terms of "to the limit of the rules" especially when there is significant gray area in a performance-increasing area of our rules.

It doesn't say you can gut your thermostat, but people do.

It doesn't say you have to run all the bolts on the manifold heat shield, but some don't.

As torturous as an interpretation the above may be, you're being equally torturous to ignore the fact these shocks are out in circulation and claim "nothing more needed than this addition" while also claiming "this rule change doesn't cost anyone any money".

And I've never said everyone has to pony up for shocks. I've offered a proposal which aligns with the purported goal of this rule change: to improve compliance and ensure non-tampering. There's a way to do it but this rule, as written, does not achieve it considering the totality of history with respect to shocks.

Thank you for your input.

When one doesn't care to communicate fiction or fact of the shock, use the old time crutch.

Black socks are cooler than white socks. Fact. Cool = Fast. Do need to ban black socks?  #BlackSocksMatter

Just so long as they meet the FIA 8560 standard.  But little secret, the bamboo socks made and sold by Faceplant Dreams are in fact the fastest socks you can wear. https://www.faceplan...llections/socks

Just so long as they meet the FIA 8560 standard.  But little secret, the bamboo socks made and sold by Faceplant Dreams are in fact the fastest socks you can wear. https://www.faceplan...llections/socks

As nice as those are I have some questions.  Do they have a layer to trap the moisture they wick?  I have a bamboo sport coat, love it, light weight, cool enough for the summer.  Just have problems with socks that wick but don't trap the moisture away from the skin. Egyptian cotton are my current go to fabric for socks (business not racing) .

Sean's reply didn't come until AFTER your comment...nice try.

 

You're falsely presuming competitors did NOT optimize their components to the posted limits.

 

Irrespective of the IIDSYCYC, services were offered to optimize the shock to what was supposedly being checked in tech. Yet after this year's Runoffs it was apparent there isn't a mechanism within the GCR to actually enforce those values and instead of reviewing the totality of the six, going on seven, years of this specification being posted, the proposal is to claim "as delivered" and no effort to enable competitors to check for compliance.

 

Yes it's getting pedantic and nit picky (and I doth protest not - it's simple logic when rule changes are proposed) but this is racing and regardless of purported gains, competitors will pull out all the stops in terms of "to the limit of the rules" especially when there is significant gray area in a performance-increasing area of our rules.

It doesn't say you can gut your thermostat, but people do.

It doesn't say you have to run all the bolts on the manifold heat shield, but some don't.

As torturous as an interpretation the above may be, you're being equally torturous to ignore the fact these shocks are out in circulation and claim "nothing more needed than this addition" while also claiming "this rule change doesn't cost anyone any money".

 

And I've never said everyone has to pony up for shocks. I've offered a proposal which aligns with the purported goal of this rule change: to improve compliance and ensure non-tampering. There's a way to do it but this rule, as written, does not achieve it considering the totality of history with respect to shocks.

I'm not assuming anything.  I would, however, be satisfied to hear from the ENTIRE SM community about which way they want to go with this.  My bet is the proposed rule change, as opposed to requiring a sealed shock, would get the nod handily.

I'm not assuming anything.  I would, however, be satisfied to hear from the ENTIRE SM community about which way they want to go with this.  My bet is the proposed rule change, as opposed to requiring a sealed shock, would get the nod handily.

And do you think that bamboo socks would qualify for FIA 8560?

When one doesn't care to communicate fiction or fact of the shock, use the old time crutch.

David, I'm not a rules maker.  I'm not an SM competitor or prep shop.  I'm just a steward who has to live within the confines of the GCR and from my experience, your approach to problem solving is exactly how we got to the monster that is the GCR.  This proposal is a simple clarification of the existing rule.  It will have minimal impact on the SM community.  Should the occasion arise and shocks need to be validated at an event, it makes the process less likely to result in an argument about meaning.

Thank for you input is the shorthand version of the above.

I'm not assuming anything.  I would, however, be satisfied to hear from the ENTIRE SM community about which way they want to go with this.  My bet is the proposed rule change, as opposed to requiring a sealed shock, would get the nod handily.

Once again, ignoring the fact there's alternatives to pursue beyond issuing just this single rule but that's okay with you. It seems you already have your pat answer "Thank you for your input" which is what I'm anticipating receiving anyway.

And a bill for $600 for new shocks.

Which you said I shouldn't expect.

Gee, thanks?

It's surprising I'm in agreement with Bench considering I don't own a 1.6...

ETA: "It will have minimal impact on the SM community" - bullshit?

new socks cost $600?  

Only the Bamboo ones

I skipped the last 3-4 pages , see I haven't missed much other than Ross and his talk of  metro socks

New shocks $400 less labor.. put them on if any doubt and let's move on you know they have ever been opened. If they have been on more than two seasons, probably not a bad idea to put some new ones on anyway. 

Jim

 I'm just a steward who has to live within the confines of the GCR and from my experience, your approach to problem solving is exactly how we got to the monster that is the GCR.  This proposal is a simple clarification of the existing rule.  It will have minimal impact on the SM community.  Should the occasion arise and shocks need to be validated at an event, it makes the process less likely to result in an argument about meaning.

Whoa, I had nothing to do with implementing the existing rule. The simple reason a clarification is deemed necessary is because the existing rule left the door open. Therefore please lay blame for the thick GCR on the SMAC/CRB. The SMAC/CRB could keep the GCR from getting thicker by implementing the new rule and eliminating the existing rule. Thank you!

Once again, ignoring the fact there's alternatives to pursue beyond issuing just this single rule but that's okay with you. It seems you already have your pat answer "Thank you for your input" which is what I'm anticipating receiving anyway.

 

And a bill for $600 for new shocks.

Which you said I shouldn't expect.

 

Gee, thanks?

 

It's surprising I'm in agreement with Bench considering I don't own a 1.6...

 

ETA: "It will have minimal impact on the SM community" - bullshit?

I think it's worth noting, you're not the SM community, just one member.

Whoa, I had nothing to do with implementing the existing rule. The simple reason a clarification is deemed necessary is because the existing rule left the door open. Therefore please lay blame for the thick GCR on the SMAC/CRB. The SMAC/CRB could keep the GCR from getting thicker by implementing the new rule and eliminating the existing rule. Thank you!

Yes, David, you're the only one qualified to write rules.  That's been obvious for years.