195 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

I have no doubt that what the dog was trained to detect he was 100% accurate in detecting. The problem comes for what you ask the dog to detect.

They lifted it's ear and spoke softly as to what they expected to be detected.  

[Fat Cat]

Hey Steve,

 

I think you may have misinterpreted what I said in the video - softening the rebound damping is a GOOD thing for SM setups, particularly at the higher damper velocities. This reduces jacking down and associated instability / bouncing / grip loss from pulling so strongly into the bump stop which ramps up the effective spring rate and makes the cars oscillate excessively, plus have terrible compliance when dealing with curbing. The mid and high speed rebound is excessive given the very low compression of the 90-97 Bilstein HD (Spec Miata) vs. how we and other successful builders tune track / time attack / ITA / STL / etc. Miatas for maximum grip and best lap times.

 

I'm going to start a new thread on this topic as I feel it is in the interest of all SCCA SM racers to understand what I shared in those videos and to ask SMAC for visibility on any potential rule changes. I made the videos to stir discussion and encourage a more functional, real-world set of shock rules. In the process of creating those rules, I would rather there be an opportunity for a racer to benefit from improved drivability / safety and reduced tire wear, times instead of being set back.

 

Regards,

Shaikh

 

Kudos to him for putting that out there, surely a calculated move that could increase business or lose it. Though even with tighter specs there will always be plenty of people looking to optimize within them.

I knew there were a lot of people messing with rebound because there is no lower limit, but that seems mostly a bad idea (as also stated in the video) so I haven't been too concerned. But Shaikh has gone well beyond that to exploit the very large "margin" built into the rules and the complete lack of specs for a large part of the real-world range.

As I understand it Shaikh is not alone and I had been trying to find a way of ordering a set from that other source on the sly to see what they were doing. But I think this covers it or at least demonstrates how much room there is in the rules.

Years ago there were no specs at all for shocks and countless variations were being used until we worked behind the scenes to put a stop to it. Unfortunately it appears that the specs are woefully inadequate, or it needs to be made clear to all that modifying shocks within the specs is explicitly allowed. I'm fine with either, I'm just (once again) sick of being at a disadvantage for following the rules.

[Steve Scheifler]

Shaikh, thanks for responding. People that I have spoken with who tried shocks with reduced rebound (but little if any other change as I understood it) were of mixed opinion but mostly negative. Of course there is the matter of degree, but do you think that is a benefit if it was all you could do? Admittedly, it isn't always easy to determine quickly what is better overall on track, so being unfamiliar may be perceived as worse before one learns to take advantage of the change.

[Fat Cat]

That's interesting and surprising, as all the feedback I've had from our various customers has been universally positive, including with the original SM-X revalve (similar to what Stewart was doing). In most cases, being methodical folks our SM customers only put in revalved dampers and left everything else constant - ride height, tires, alignment. While I'm guided by theory, I'm a real-world results guy. If my customers said their cars were slower, I'd hear about it!

 

This was feedback from a customer a couple months ago:

 

 

Good Morning Shaikh,

 

Just wanted to give you some feedback on the shocks.

 

You did a very good job on them, the car handles extremely well and I clocked my fastest lap time ever, almost won the race too but my buddy got me in the end. Very compliant over bumps and keeps the car well composed over the whole track, definitely feel like I have an advantage over other cars, FOR SURE. Very stable and confidence inspiring.

 

Thank you very much, you will definitely be my go-to guy for shock services.

 

 

The amount of rebound on the SM dampers is pretty nutty at high damper speeds. It's funny - they basically linearized the rebound of a digressive piston, while I use more linear compression (since it starts off so soft) and go back to a digressive rebound curve. Have you seen the OE Showa damping curves? Much less rebound, much more compression. Granted the springs are softer, but there's no reason (other than to jack the cars down onto the bump stops) to have practically zero compression damping. Some years ago I did pretty extensive data acquisition on Senna, our track Miata - shock pots, double-adjustable dampers, histograms, segment times, max g's. It helped refine the damping curves I'd already empirically arrived at to maximize grip and minimize vertical acceleration, which together mean fastest settling time and minimized lap time. Our Elite track and autocross builds with similar spring rates to the SM 700/325 follow a similar trend to the revised SM damping we're now doing.

 

 

I KNOW there would still be a benefit if we were required to leave compression 'stock' and only able to soften mid/high-speed rebound. I outlined the benefits in the videos and have already mentioned them in my previous post. Our customer mentioned them in his comments to me.

 

 

I think you also nailed it with your last sentence - the driver may have to adapt to a more fluid, softer-damped setup which may feel 'too soft' to someone used to the crazy amounts of rebound, but the benefit is in more optimized tire contact patch and less sudden vertical acceleration (bottoming out or crashing down). This leads to enhanced consistency and lap-to-lap predictability. Even on my E46 330i and a recent E46 M3 we tuned, both of which came with linear rebound from the factory, I've found that the cars gain grip and are easier to drive the more digressive you make the rebound. The benefits compound when you can use a reasonable amount of compression as well.

[Steve Scheifler]

I wasn't expressing doubt in your results. I don't even know whether any of the shocks were from you, or tuned in the same way as yours. And don't get me wrong, I was probably the most vocal person online 10 years ago insisting that people underestimated the gains to be had with the free-for-all revalving that was being done at the time, which is why I pushed so hard to have it stopped. It was not unheard of for people to have three or more different sets so they could mix & match during a weekend to fine tune for each track. About the only thing I didn't see was built-in adjusters.

But to be clear, though you are certain that rebound-reduction alone if done correctly is beneficial, your best tune within the current specs also includes significantly increased and "re-mapped" compression, correct? If so then I am not at all surprised that the benefits of those are substantial.

Two more questions. To what degree have the changes resulted in an overall improvement but with some trade-offs where perhaps they were not as good in certain corners or conditions? And, describe the effect under full-wet conditions, expected and observed?

[Fat Cat]

I think the benefit goes in stages - reduce mid/high-speed rebound, then add mid/high-speed bump (and low speed if you're able, but the current rules don't allow much of an increase in low speed bump). It's really about optimizing contact patch you so you can ask yourself 'how much damping does the car need, front and rear, to keep the tire on the ground through the range of situations you'll experience on the race track? If you have a bias of compression or rebound, beyond what is needed for optimal grip, how does that affect the contact patch?'

 

The science of this is well-understood to most OEs and a decent number of aftermarket companies, it's just that the original Spec Miata damping was designed for NASCAR-type surfaces (flat, no berms) and is far off from what is really 'ideal' on a real-world race track that we're starting buried and lost in the woods but want to climb a mountain we currently can't see. First we have to dig out of the hole before we take another step. What Stewart did and what I'm doing is first remove the ankle weights and blindfold of excess high speed rebound. That lets us get closer to ground level so we can see the terrain and orient ourselves. Then, if the option exists, you 'rise above' the treeline by adding add some mid and high speed compression which helps support the chassis (which the dampers are perfectly willing, able, and happy to do - look at a rally car!). Then you aren't being 'dragged down into hell' by that rebound and can use even more of the track with less disturbance of contact patch.

 

As to the last two questions, you'll need to ask racers who are using them to come forward and share their detailed observations (if they're willing to - John Adamczyk from 5X Racing has a set of the SM-MAX dampers). There are some dozens of customers using the SM-X (digressive compression vs. the linear compression of SM-MAX) but the observations between both seem similar although I hear more of the 'confidence-inspiring' comments from the SM-MAX customers.

 

From the comments I've received, there have been no trade-offs reported. Getting used to a setup that isn't always pulling into the bump stop is a driver-related phenomenon. I used to autocross and track a setup with R-pkg Bilsteins (even more rebound than the SM Bilsteins and similar nearly-no compression) and when I got my first 'quality' revalve (with softer rebound and more bump) I had to get used to how the car moved more, but also had more stick. In wet / dirty / lower-grip conditions the Spec Miata with retuned dampers along the lines I've described would absolutely have more grip than the out-of-box, strong-rebound Bilstein HD / SM Bilstein dampers which are always trying to pull the tire off the ground and also bounce you up in the air by jacking into the bump stops. I've verified the superiority of the 'less rebound is better' approach through multiple autocross wins in the wet and wet track day experience, both me and my customers.

 

Sounds like you need to buy a set and test for yourself, Steve!

[Rob Burgoon]

Do we open up the spec to include compression valving that doesn't suck?

 

Do we lock down the spec to require the awful progressive rebound the off the shelf bilsteins offer?

 

Do we ask bilstein to build us a new spec shock that doesn't suck?

 

Do we stick with the current spec and test which means you gotta revalve for good performance?

 

 

*cough* do I need some of that rebound back to tighten up my entry?

[Jim Drago]

Do we open up the spec to include compression valving that doesn't suck?

 

Do we lock down the spec to require the awful progressive rebound the off the shelf bilsteins offer?

 

Do we ask bilstein to build us a new spec shock that doesn't suck?

 

Do we stick with the current spec and test which means you gotta revalve for good performance?

 

 

*cough* do I need some of that rebound back to tighten up my entry?

We leave it alone as SMAC is handling it and there will likley be a new spec with help from Bilstein for 2017 ... 

We dont need a better shock IMO, we have a shock that has worked for years.. as long as all are confident that they are on the same shock that costs the least.. we are all good IMO.  

[Steve Scheifler]

Yea, it's the "same shock" part that's been the problem.

Shaikh, I would have ordered some by now if I didn't suspect that it would prove a costly item amortized over just a few weekends. If you will revalve to the new specs for free if/when they are released then I might consider it. But if we get new specs, they will surely extend the velocity range and tighten up the force values. There will have to be some margin of course, but from the sounds of it far less than we have now. There will still be value in "blueprinting" but people may not be willing to pay quite as much for what's left.

[Bench Racer]

Dave, late to the party. Haven't heard anything about bore (yes I understand bore measure thru plug hole becomes a red flag) and stroke lately unless tear down.

[Rob Burgoon]

"We leave it alone"

 

Not a chance!

 

 

 

We dont need a better shock IMO, we have a shock that has worked for years..  

 

Has it though?  Or has the top of the class had revalves from the early days up until testing procedure came out and partially closed the door?

[Steve Scheifler]

Revalve was the norm up front through 2006, then I suspect most went back to stock. The main guy people used at Bilstien had died but others picked it up and a new round of R&D began. Not surprising if people have learned to take maximum advantage of weak specs in the past decade.

[Jim Drago]

"We leave it alone"

 

Not a chance!

 

 

 

Has it though?  Or has the top of the class had revalves from the early days up until testing procedure came out and partially closed the door?

It has worked fine.. testing procedures you are talking about were introduced around 2006. The shocks I have seen including the JD and SD shocks were far worse than out of the box Billstein. IMO both were undriveable compared to stock untouched. most of teh feedback is from people who were told the shocks are better and guess what they tell you.. yes they are better. Most dont have a clue, sad but true.  The lastest ones from Shaikh and a few others are getting what they can under the existing spec. Completely legal, but outside class philoshy and we can talk about that all day.

 

 IMO, I have not seen anyone that I would suspect had a shock advantage.  If they tighten it up again even further, it is a done deal. No one will be paying big money for shocks if there is no advantage and if they advantage is so small .. let them spend their money.   Both national Championships I won were with out of the box, absolutely untouched shocks. 

[speedengineer]

...Completely legal, but outside class philoshy and we can talk about that all day.

Correction: Completely tech shed legal. Definitely isn't legal to modify them...

Looking forward to some tighter specs on these for 2017.

[Fat Cat]

What up Rob!

 

Great questions. To briefly answer I would say:

 

"Yes" to your question 1 (or make the compression specs tighter but allow softer rebound high speed - see my choices 2 and 3 in Part 2),

 

"Definitely no" to question 2 - that would be proof that SMAC really hates SM racers and shock builders who want to provide a win-win-win all around with intelligent shock rules,

 

"It probably won't happen" to question 3 (I've already spoken with Bilstein and Mazdaspeed Motorsports about this and there probably isn't enough motivation on either's part to create a new

shock spec supplied from Germany). Plus what about all the dampers already here in the US?

 

For question 4, "the current spec essentially encourages if not requires a Nationally-competitive car to have revalved shocks, or an alien driver, or the right planetary alignment, or have the best motor and everything other detail optimized on their car to win. If you're not doing it, your competitor finishing ahead of you probably is. NASA National Championships testing from a couple years ago indicated that the top place finisher had dampers that, while technically legal, were 'different' than the next 3 places. Hmmm! That was when I got a call from John Mueller, then National Director for SM, asking me to do the statistics and investigate possible shock rule changes. Not running revalved dampers when you can is like having a pro motor and accelerating at part throttle on a straight - you could, but why would you want to do that and leave room for a competitor to pass you?"

 

I'll wax philosophical in the first part (but it's important to understand what I'm saying) and then answer your questions in the second part by laying out what I consider the 5 routes that SMAC could take to address the shock rules.

 

By the way, my full Excel report (updated with a few new tabs / graphs) which I sent to John Mueller and also provided to John Bauer of SCCA is here:

 

http://www.fatcatmot...ed_4_20_16.xlsx

 

EDIT: the file is there, you need to right click and either save as or open in new tab then wait a few seconds for the browser to prompt you to save or open the file.

 

=== Part 1 ===

I think it's safe to say a key reason this is being discussed right now is me 'spilling the beans' through my 3 SM videos, particularly me illustrating how much you can increase compression with the rule as currently written. I KNOW I'm not the first person to do this, by the way! In considering your questions, I have to go back to the rules - why they were written the way they were and what beneficial damping changes do they allow? For anyone who hasn't yet seen the videos, go here for the first one: https://www.youtube....CC286CD2172A755 . The gist of the technical discussion (shock specs vs. statistics on forces from 9 front / 9 rear SM shocks) is in the 2nd video ( https://www.youtube....72A755&index=41 ). I consider the 2nd video required viewing for ALL competitors to know what your average 1990-1997 Bilstein HD / Spec Miata Bilstein is doing vs. what the SCCA shock rules subtly allow.  The third video shows graphs of factory HD, our SM-X original revalve and new SM-MAX - a picture is worth a thousand words - and it's the SM-MAX valving (with much stronger mid and high speed compression - still within the letter of the rules!) that's causing all the uproar. You don't know what you don't know and I explain what you don't know in these vids.

 

So, were the rules written as they were by accident (with a much wider compression force allowance, percentage-wise, vs. a tighter allowance on rebound) or intentionally? Did the rule maker(s) know that softer high speed rebound and stiffer high speed bump would make the SMs faster / better? I would say it was definitely NOT accidental but intended to allow a clever competitor (or rule maker!) to take advantage of the shock allowances while innocently saying 'see, we have a good tight shock spec now!'.

 

"Whoah," I hear you say - conspiracy theory alert!" Okay, Mr. Skeptic, you want proof? Look at the GENEROUS compression spec allowance, which clearly allows forces well-beyond what any out-of-the-box damper would create, especially versus the MUCH TIGHTER allowance on rebound. See video #2, from 5:30 min to 13:45 min: what I present in that segment is the crux of my argument that the original rules were inadequately strict on compression unless the hidden intent was to allow a shock like SM-MAX to be 'legal,' but not made public.

 

If the original intent of the maximum force specs was *truly* to make an out-of-the-box shock the de facto standard (after all the wild west tuning before the spec was created) and prevent cheating then the mission was not accomplished. Yes, your out-of-the-box shock would pass, but you could modify that damper for significantly enhanced performance which a weak shock test would not pick up. A large variation in lap times and vehicle handling behavior would result, as many racers have noted.

 

I hope everyone can see the truth of the matter that a. the allowed compression forces are much higher than even a small statistical sampling would warrant: you only need to test 4 shocks to see this - and b. the max test velocity is too low to ensure a 'stock-like' damper is being used. There has always been a lot of room in the shock rules to play with damping as anyone who has watched my  videos can see. This situation is not something I caused, but simply one I shone light on. Let's all be clear on this point. I'm very glad to be having this discussion - MY mission accomplished!

 

=== Part 2 ===

Now, to the potential rule changes. There is nothing inherently broken from my perspective and that of many racers, but it seems SMAC is interested in grumble grumble doing something grumble grumble about 'cheater shocks' (hahah!). In discussing rule changes for 2017, I see 5 main choices:

 

 

Do nothing for 2017 (and beyond), OR do nothing but gather shock data at big events with possible rule changes in 2018.

 

1a. Let the specs stand as they are indefinitely. If it's really not 'broke', don't try and fix it.

 

1b. Let the specs stand but begin recording shock curves for the dampers of the top 3 finishers. Statistics on these data would help inform future rule changes.

 

Result: any shock meeting current specs up to 4.5 in/sec will be deemed legal, although variation of shock performance is possible via different valving approaches.

 

 

Expand velocity range and tighten compression forces only OR expand/tighten compression plus expand rebound

 

2a. Taking the digressive compression curve of the average out-of-box SM shock, extend the compression force spec up to 9 in/sec to eliminate the higher compression force loophole. I suggest values in video #2. Leave rebound spec alone - while you will test the damper up to 9 in/sec to get compression forces, ignore the rebound forces above 4.5 in/sec.

 

2b. Along with tightening compression forces and expanding the test velocity range, also create a functional rebound spec up to 9 in/sec as I've outlined in video #2.

 

Result: only shocks similar to SM-X would be legal or may need revision to reduce compression. Shocks with softened mid/high-speed rebound would be legal. SM-MAX would not be legal due to higher compression. All out of the box shocks would be legal provided rebound spec up to 9 in/sec was chosen to account for variation in high speed rebound due to shim orientation (watch a few minutes from 13:45 in video #2). All SM race cars would be allowed to be improved if desired via shock revalving.

 

 

Expand velocity range and open compression forces to allow 'linear' curve OR expand/open compression plus expand rebound

3a. Seeing that the 'linearized' compression of the FCM SM-MAX damper provides real-world advantages in grip, reduced lap times, and better vehicle consistency, allow that curve to be legal and test compression up to 9 in/sec. I can provide sample forces for a range of SM-MAX dampers to get a statistical sampling forces. Leave rebound spec alone - while you will test the damper up to 9 in/sec to get compression forces, ignore the rebound forces above 4.5 in/sec.

 

3b. Along with the 'linearized' compression spec, create a rebound spec up to 9 in/sec as I've outlined in video #2.

 

Result: essentially all current shocks in the field would be legal provided they follow a similar compression force curve to SM-MAX. All SM race cars would be further improved in terms of bottoming resistance and lap times would go down, safety and stability would go up, the class would on the whole advance in terms of sophistication and driving experience. Could predict interest in Spec Miata racing would also increase (people are watching!).

 

 

Tighten compression AND rebound forces and expand velocity range to prevent anything other than an out-of-the-box shock from being legal

 

4. Create a force window for compression and rebound up to 9 in/sec such that any shock not within that window, on either compression or rebound would be deemed 'not out-of-the-box' and hence illegal.

 

Result: A challenge to accurately specify a lower limit on rebound shock force, compression force compliance is easier to guarantee due to narrower variance; more shock testing and statistical analysis would be required. Any modified damper would be suddenly illegal and require revalving back to OE specs to be deemed legal. Cars would be slower, harsher, tires would wear faster vs. softer rebound setup, racers will be subject to more intense WBV (whole body vibration) from the jacking down behavior more appropriate to NASCAR than a race track with berms and/or rough pavement, sharp oval-to-infield transitions, etc. Predict existing racers would be more likely to exit Spec Miata in favor for other classes or other series with more open / understanding shock rules. New racers may not enter Spec Miata due to backward-looking shock rules that penalize innovation and concern for driver welfare while allowing VERY expensive built engines (!?!).

 

Decreeing a slew of shocks illegal could cause a mad dash for replacement dampers, revalves to some new spec, etc. which could throw the class into chaos. On the other hand, an orderly investigation with an eye toward applying changes down the road would generate the least anxiety and maintain racer confidence in the plus the SMAC's decision-making process. Wise leadership is forward-looking leadership.

 

 

Start over and ...?

 

5. Scrap the current spec and create a spec closer to what a no-holds-barred real-world track rack damper would be generating, particularly softer / digressive rebound valving and more low / mid/ high speed compression.

 

Result: all current shocks would be legal, but even further modifications would be allowed and indeed mandated to be competitive. While my experience indicates the cars would be faster with more open valving (customers going from SM to IT have indicated this), it would essentially make every out-of-the-box shock uncompetitive without revalving. Could introduce new handling behaviors and suggest modifications to bump stops to take the most advantage of this damper change. Seems to open a hornets nest of multiple changes at once that could excessively complicate the class.

 

===

Any other changes would be variations on this theme. I will get the elephant in the room out of the way and say that going with choice 4 (which is your second question)  -  tightening compression AND rebound to prevent the beneficial rebound softening - would be a very bad idea for the class, like knowing the delight of filet mignon but being forced to eat McDonalds because daddy said so. It's reactionary thinking and racers will vote with their feet as a number did after the engine debacle. I will be happy to make lots of videos exercising my 1st Amendment right while riffing on the theme of "avoid SCCA Spec Miata and here's why. Go play in IT or NASA PT, etc."

 

If a new rule was written to mandate no softening of the rebound, I would call for a mutiny. It's mean-spirited to REQUIRE people to suffer with a damper generating so much rebound and the DAMAGING  amounts of acceleration that result. One might think they're bad ass for 'being a real racer' but ask your back in a few years if it really likes that much rebound damping. Anyone ever heard of WBV - whole body vibration? It's a serious problem with truck and delivery drivers (another industry I'm getting involved in). BOSE put out a paper about it, saying their seat solutions would reduce WBV up to 30%. That's nice, but it doesn't go far enough - I know we can and have achieved further improvements in reducing WBV on the SM by addressing the root cause of the problem - #1 excessive mid- and high-speed rebound and #2 weak mid- and high-speed compression.

 

So, we're clear that "choice 4" is not WINNING and would smack of cronyism. It's the worst possible direction for the class to go in.

 

Choice 5 is also the wrong direction - too many questions, too much freedom. The shock rules aren't broken, but they do leave a lot of room for interpretation which I don't think is in the best interest of the class. The rules would benefit from being cleaned up with an eye toward "what makes the cars better?" - just like rebuilding an engine and getting more power from it, but now you have a benefit in a straight line AND in cornering.

 

So, let's assume we can expect some inspired leadership and the any changes would be some variant of choices 1, 2, or 3. The question I then have - and probably what's on everyone's mind in terms of a rule change - is what would give the least impact in terms of compliance testing, burden to the racer,  and generate the fewest unintended consequences, while also maximize the benefit of the change? Agreed?

 

If we ask 'what single change to the dampers would result in more grip, better tire wear, more consistent handling in wet/inclement weather, less discomfort on rougher tracks, and better lap times?' that answer is: less mid and high speed rebound. That's the meat of it. Everything else is gravy - tasty, but not required. Any changes that are to be hailed as "wow, nice job SMAC!" would need to allow a softening of rebound damping from the out-of-the-box values. We can debate how much softening if that's really a concern but I don't believe it is. Too little and the car will bounce - a lot. The racer won't like it. The main point would be to create a spec for the out-of-the-box shock (as I've indicated in my video#2) and the softening will take care of itself. Heck, if you really wanted you could use the rebound of our SM-X or SM-MAX as a lower-limit baseline since we know it works!

 

If someone is interested in testing the SM-X (choice 2) vs SM-MAX (choice 3), we can work with them to see if there is a measurable difference between the two.

 

The benefit of going with choice 3 is that the rules have implicitly allowed the SM-MAX damper to exist, by NOT saying "you can't make more force above 4.5 in/sec than this trendline." Quite likely no one with modified shocks meeting the current spec would have to change anything. Those who want to experience the benefits of a better-optimized damper profile would be able to and see clearly they have a 'limit' build just as good as the other guys. Or you could leave your shocks as they are out of the box and just drive them that way (some people really don't like change and I can appreciate that).

 

Most importantly, going with choices 2 or 3 you aren't punishing people who are basically saying "more power is well and good, but I want a car that's easier and more fun to drive, better on tires, better in the wet, and isn't punishing my body. I could hand the keys to my wife / husband / son / father / co-worker at a track day and they would enjoy the experience and maybe even want one of their own." You'll get more participation with that kind of rule set vs. some backward-looking, draconian mandate from on-high.

 

I've laboriously outlined what I see as the 'worst-case' scenario because if we don't imagine the cost of that occurring, we can't adequately assess the situation nor make an inclusive, long-term decision.

===

 

TL;dr? What should be done? 1) Nothing, or 2) tighten compression but allow softer rebound - test both up to higher velocities, or 3) explicitly allow the SM-MAX damper to be legal via revised rules and expanded test velocities.

[Rob Burgoon]

mods, I think we need shock talk moved to a new thread.  Looks like we goin deep.

[Fat Cat]

It has worked fine.. testing procedures you are talking about were introduced around 2006. The shocks I have seen including the JD and SD shocks were far worse than out of the box Billstein. IMO both were undriveable compared to stock untouched. most of teh feedback is from people who were told the shocks are better and guess what they tell you.. yes they are better. Most dont have a clue, sad but true.  The lastest ones from Shaikh and a few others are getting what they can under the existing spec. Completely legal, but outside class philoshy and we can talk about that all day.

 

 IMO, I have not seen anyone that I would suspect had a shock advantage.  If they tighten it up again even further, it is a done deal. No one will be paying big money for shocks if there is no advantage and if they advantage is so small .. let them spend their money.   Both national Championships I won were witt of the box, absolutely untouched shocks. 

 

Funny how the idea of 'outside class philosophy' is so selectively applied. Fine to modify engines, but a few simple and beneficial changes to shocks, no way!  Eccentric bushings for more camber. Revalving the shocks is not polishing a turd, especially since the out of the box shocks are so far from ideal compared to a true, effective race car setup. Ask me how I know.

 

If some people can't tell the difference or are clueless, they're probably too slow to notice anyway and I haven't met or talked with them. There's no placebo effect in play when you actually address a design deficiency, which is what I'm doing. It's the only reason I ever got into SM revalving to begin with. Changing forces 5 or 10 % wouldn't make sense. When you reduce rebound 30-50% and the car really wakes up and does everything important better (like turn faster laps) then you've really got something. I think you've drunk your own 'out-of-the-box is best' Koolaid, Jim, without knowing what you're missing with fresh-squeezed juice.

 

The shock rules were created behind the scenes, by persons unknown and not to be named. It's clear those rules had glaring oversights that some / many have taken useful advantage of. The new rules are being created also behind the scenes and apparently without membership feedback - unless I've missed some thread of SMAC with Mazdaracers on this subject. Color me surprised. I just hope for everyone's sake whatever is decided it's not choice 4 - tightening rebound to prevent softening. That is the key point I'm campaigning for. All the results I have from customers (plus what Stewart was doing) indicates makes the cars better in every way. I recall Rob Gibson singing SD's praises some years ago, for good reason.

 

You'd have won by bigger margins and enjoyed the races even more with intelligently valved dampers. But then if people have to choose between engine builds or shock revalves, they seem universally if quietly steered toward the former. Because you know, moar power ARR ARR solves everything...

 

(EDIT) ... and both championships you won with were junkyard motors, right?

[Sean - MiataCage]

How much do you charge for this service?

 

Thanks... Sean

[Steve Scheifler]

Shaikh, I'm glad you are here and shining a light on this. We have all long known that the original selection of springs & shocks were a terrible missmatch, but there is a reason that we still use them (and it's not just a conspiracy to keep the masses at a disadvantage). I personally would welcome a change, but rather than modifying the current shocks at significant cost and limited suppliers with the right formula, I would source a new complete set of properly matched springs & shocks which out of the box left far less room for improvement. People with no expectation of being competitive anyway would not be forced to change, but those who are trying to move up would have one less thing to worry about.

That will not happen, though I wish it would. Not because the cars would be faster as a class, that is irrelevant to most of us, but because I want to drive a car that behaves more like a race car should and responds to available setup changes more like a race car should. On that part we agree, but we are in the minority.

Your predictions about what will and won't occur given each scenario, though not too outlandish to an outsider, only demonstrate how far removed you are from the SM culture. I mean that in the nicest way it's a fine sales pitch, but I don't think you will get many takers.

Again, thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts, but don't take it personally if we end up taking your least favored course of just tightening the specs, which BTW would be my 2nd choice behind sourcing new parts.

[38bfast]

The SMAC has been in meetings with Mazda and Bilstein in reference to our spec shocks. We are reviewing the production tolerance provided by Bilstien and are reviewing the current spec.