195 replies to this topic

[Rob Burgoon]

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.

 

 

Bingo.  I'd love a shock that doesn't suck ass, but how much of this class has done shock rebuilds?  20%?  at most?  And those 80% aren't gonna want to spend any money.

[Fat Cat]

Steve, you're cute - more hyper-idealistic than I am. I'm being pratical about this, not idealistic which doesn't get us anywhere useful. I think we don't agree on the most effective direction for the class. The current rule has been working - nothing NEEDS to be done. The impetus to change is more motivated by ego than any real necessity. The benefit of reduced rebound is so big that NOT allowing it is evil. Yes, evil. If I had said nothing, I can guarantee no one would have been the wiser. So because SMAC created rules that we now agree allow wide interpretation - but also allowed the cars to be easier to drive, turn faster laps, and less abusive - -  the "right" thing for SMAC to do now to preserve "SM culture" is to step backward and make a stricter rule that forces the dampers to be worse in every way!? If I've misinterpreted what you said, please clarify but I don't think I did. So... wow... that's like signing up for Stockholm Syndrome and smiling while being abused on the race track. No offense to you, I'm just scratching my head at the justification.

 

Money is nice but I only work on SM dampers given I have the ability to make them BETTER, in absolute, non-fuzzy, real-world measurable terms. Because science. Because that's the Right Thing To Do ™. If a revised ruleset comes out that forces racers to use the stiffer rebound then you won't see me posting at all, nor will I touch a single SM damper. Andevery night before I go to bed I will add a prayer for the spines and necks and backs of every SM racer. Knowing what I know, I'd consider building dampers along those lines being accomplice to assault. If someone tried to force me to make dampers that I knew would hurt a customer, I wouldn't do it.

 

Maybe we live in different worlds compared to tire budget and engine work, but the revalve cost is not "significant" - $200 a corner for SM-MAX without Ripple Reducer, plus $400 if the customer wants Ripple Reducer. I'm sure an engine builder offers an array of options for a rebuild but we only have one. You also get 'after' shock dynos so you know what your dampers are doing. How many people even have that info? The dampers would easily last a few seasons or even indefinitely if you're on a budget - servicing would be optional and half the cost to change fluid and re-dyno.

 

In terms of lead-time, the last few sets we've turned around in under a week, 3 are in process right now. We can do 5-7 sets a week, more if demand was there and I had to hire another tech. Bilstein can revalve at lower cost than us but lead-times also can vary more. Also there's PSI, DeltaVee, and no doubt a half dozen more who can service Bilsteins. However, we have some special enhancements others likely don't. But finding a shop isn't an issue and if there was a lot of demand, ingenuity would drive the market to accommodate.

 

Let's be honest, a reasonable reading of the rules would get a motivated racer to ask question of a shock builder and then take advantage of those rules. Those who are on the band wagon have already bought services from me or someone else. The new interest could be handled within a few months and would then taper off. I hope you understand this situation is much different than the isolator interference issue you brought up.

 

I get the Law of Diffusion of Innovation which would apply here - the adopting of any new technology goes through a life cycle. With enough notice from SMAC so racers can decide what they want to do for next season, we could handle demand from the innovators who want the best. Then the early adopters who would wait to hear from the innovators, then the late adopters who'd want to see what the early adopters felt over weeks and months, the much  later you're have your early majority and late majority. It wouldn't be a stampede of orders from every single SM racer all within a week, or even a month. You know that just as well as I do.

 

Most importantly, any logistic concerns are not a reason to mandate draconian measures in response to a bureaucratic oversight. Unless shooting the messenger is also part of SM culture.

[Fat Cat]

Bingo.  I'd love a shock that doesn't suck ass, but how much of this class has done shock rebuilds?  20%?  at most?  And those 80% aren't gonna want to spend any money.

You already have a shock that doesn't suck ass, or wouldn't you agree? 20% is probably a good estimate (80/20 rule). The 80% that don't want to spend any money (which I fully get) don't have to. Of that 80%, some will appreciate the advantages (because they're intelligent people) not just in lap time but drive-ability because they know they're not front runners. They just want a better car they have more fun racing. That's probably a VAST majority of SM racers in fact and I feel it's important to consider their needs.

 

So we're back to what I call choice 2 - tighten bump spec and clarify rebound without putting an excessively stiff lower bound.  Fantasizing about new whizzbang shocks and springs and bump stops is not going to happen, nor do I think it needs to. Best bang for the buck is what's most important. I certainly hope SMAC and Bilstein can come up with a sound revised rule.

 

Wouldn't it be funny if - in a world of "stiffer is better!" - you could be DQ'd for using LESS shock damping than stock, when for YEARS the rules allowed it by default, whether accidentally or intentionally! Yeah, funny, if it wasn't so damn sad...

 

Good luck gang, I'm out.

[Rob Burgoon]

Steve, you're cute - more hyper-idealistic than I am. I'm being pratical about this, not idealistic which doesn't get us anywhere useful. I think we don't agree on the most effective direction for the class. The current rule has been working - nothing NEEDS to be done. The impetus to change is more motivated by ego than any real necessity. The benefit of reduced rebound is so big that NOT allowing it is evil. Yes, evil. If I had said nothing, I can guarantee no one would have been the wiser. So because SMAC created rules that we now agree allow wide interpretation - but also allowed the cars to be easier to drive, turn faster laps, and less abusive - -  the "right" thing for SMAC to do now to preserve "SM culture" is to step backward and make a stricter rule that forces the dampers to be worse in every way!? If I've misinterpreted what you said, please clarify but I don't think I did. So... wow... that's like signing up for Stockholm Syndrome and smiling while being abused on the race track. No offense to you, I'm just scratching my head at the justification.

 

Money is nice but I only work on SM dampers given I have the ability to make them BETTER, in absolute, non-fuzzy, real-world measurable terms. Because science. Because that's the Right Thing To Do ™. If a revised ruleset comes out that forces racers to use the stiffer rebound then you won't see me posting at all, nor will I touch a single SM damper. Andevery night before I go to bed I will add a prayer for the spines and necks and backs of every SM racer. Knowing what I know, I'd consider building dampers along those lines being accomplice to assault. If someone tried to force me to make dampers that I knew would hurt a customer, I wouldn't do it.

 

Maybe we live in different worlds compared to tire budget and engine work, but the revalve cost is not "significant" - $200 a corner for SM-MAX without Ripple Reducer, plus $400 if the customer wants Ripple Reducer. I'm sure an engine builder offers an array of options for a rebuild but we only have one. You also get 'after' shock dynos so you know what your dampers are doing. How many people even have that info? The dampers would easily last a few seasons or even indefinitely if you're on a budget - servicing would be optional and half the cost to change fluid and re-dyno.

 

In terms of lead-time, the last few sets we've turned around in under a week, 3 are in process right now. We can do 5-7 sets a week, more if demand was there and I had to hire another tech. Bilstein can revalve at lower cost than us but lead-times also can vary more. Also there's PSI, DeltaVee, and no doubt a half dozen more who can service Bilsteins. However, we have some special enhancements others likely don't. But finding a shop isn't an issue and if there was a lot of demand, ingenuity would drive the market to accommodate.

 

Let's be honest, a reasonable reading of the rules would get a motivated racer to ask question of a shock builder and then take advantage of those rules. Those who are on the band wagon have already bought services from me or someone else. The new interest could be handled within a few months and would then taper off. I hope you understand this situation is much different than the isolator interference issue you brought up.

 

I get the Law of Diffusion of Innovation which would apply here - the adopting of any new technology goes through a life cycle. With enough notice from SMAC so racers can decide what they want to do for next season, we could handle demand from the innovators who want the best. Then the early adopters who would wait to hear from the innovators, then the late adopters who'd want to see what the early adopters felt over weeks and months, the much  later you're have your early majority and late majority. It wouldn't be a stampede of orders from every single SM racer all within a week, or even a month. You know that just as well as I do.

 

Most importantly, any logistic concerns are not a reason to mandate draconian measures in response to a bureaucratic oversight. Unless shooting the messenger is also part of SM culture.

 

If there was some change was good for the class with no downside, it might happen, but probably wouldn't.  Pretend that you're dealing with a 80 yr old judge who thinks the internet is largely useless and dangerous and people would be much better off if they read a newspaper instead.  And nobody change anything because he'll be dead soon and change is scary.  That's the SCCA.

 

What you're suggesting has a substantial cost to the whole class, so its chances are... slim.

[Rob Burgoon]

You already have a shock that doesn't suck ass, or wouldn't you agree? 20% is probably a good estimate (80/20 rule). The 80% that don't want to spend any money (which I fully get) don't have to. Of that 80%, some will appreciate the advantages (because they're intelligent people) not just in lap time but drive-ability because they know they're not front runners. They just want a better car they have more fun racing. That's probably a VAST majority of SM racers in fact and I feel it's important to consider their needs.

 

So we're back to what I call choice 2 - tighten bump spec and clarify rebound without putting an excessively stiff lower bound.  Fantasizing about new whizzbang shocks and springs and bump stops is not going to happen, nor do I think it needs to. Best bang for the buck is what's most important. I certainly hope SMAC and Bilstein can come up with a sound revised rule.

 

Wouldn't it be funny if - in a world of "stiffer is better!" - you could be DQ'd for using LESS shock damping than stock, when for YEARS the rules allowed it by default, whether accidentally or intentionally! Yeah, funny, if it wasn't so damn sad...

 

Good luck gang, I'm out.

 

 

But that still results in a revalve for the 80% since they were blissfully ignorant up to this point and now they have a reason for losing.  Bet you a dollar we go right back to off the shelf bilstein to pacify the masses.  It's a shame, but that's the way the wind blows in this class.  There's a big backlash against "legalizing the cheats".

[Sean - MiataCage]

Shaikh,

 

You are a very talented and smart guy....  I don't doubt that in any way.  However, I will say this...... The SMAC has submitted your videos to 3 different vehicle dynamics experts responsible for dampers and tuning at 3 major car companies as well as to Bilstein directly.   Lets just say that none of them agreed with 100% of the information you shared in your videos.  I'm not going to get into who said what because it does not matter.  I don't think you taking shots at the SMAC committee is fair when you do not know what we have or have not done.

 

You are painting yourself as the expert, and while I agree that you are a very smart guy, there are other smart guys out there who have vast manufacturer resources that you do not have who do not agree with everything you say.   Surely you can understand that.  Your not the only smart guy in the world, so as a SMAC member we will do our due diligence and consult the resources we have at our disposal and we will make the decision or ask for member input and do what we think is the best for the class.   Telling us how dumb we are if we don't agree with your position isn't the way to get what you want.  What you want, or what I want doesn't matter, it is what is best for this class.

 

There is also some argument here relative to the legality as well.  At what point did it become legal to modify the damper?  Section 9.1.7C Authorized Modifications says the following:

 

"If the factory manual or these rules provide only a partial specification or no specification at all, the Mazda parts may not be modified beyond what is allowed in these rules. Compliance of such parts will be determined by comparison to new parts delivered by Mazda. Other approved parts with only a partial specification or no specification available in these rules may not be modified. Compliance of such parts will be determined by comparison to new parts from the supplier. "

 

If we put a Bilstein out of the box and compare it to one of yours that has been re-vavled then I would think that the Shock Dyno would show this, thus making it illegal.  As I understand it the shock parameters which are not part of the SM rule set were developed by the SCCA tech staff with no input from Bilstein.  Bilstein is now involved and will be making their recommendations as to their factory spec for the shock and how it should be tested.  I can not imagine that it will be inclusive of the changes you are making.

 

I personally can not support anything that is going to imply to the racer that they now need to go spend $800 to $1600 to re-vavle a product that they already own to be competitive.

 

I respect you, but I dis-agree with you on this topic.

 

Thanks.... Sean

[Steve Scheifler]

Shaikh, you definitely misunderstood me. And you really don't grasp what, in theory, is expected of the SMAC. Going way back I have been a proponent of changes that make the cars behave more like a race car should, especially when the change also saves money. That's why I am a very harsh critic of some of the "purist" SM spin-off classes which refuse to adopt a better bump-stop package or even limit camber to tire-destroying levels. Don't get me started!!

But, before starting another open R&D war which has everyone claiming their recipe is the best and new flavors every other month, I would start over with a better matched package AND tighter rules. Sure, some people would still try to improve on them but with good specs the benefit would be small. But that won't happen, and I'd be almost as surprised if the SMAC sanctions new specs and explicitly allows revalving.

And Rob's last post about legalizing cheats or gray area, exactly correct for the masses who haven't been doing it and will push back against the added expense. For them, $1200 plus shipping and labor comes to more than their annual tire budget.

[chris haldeman]

I have 2 questions for everybody reading about all this shock talk.....
#1 do you or anybody you know actually use a fat cat revalved shock?
#2 how much do you really really think it matters?

Here are my answers.
#1 I have never used anything but out of the box shocks on every car I've had and every car I've built
#2. While I've been told many times that somebody is cheating there shocks I've never really thought it mattered enough too try.

I would like too take a moment too thank fat cat for labeling me as an alien driver with aligned planets because I have no problems running in the front pack everywhere I go with my lowly few season old box stock 100$ shocks. I am seriously troubled by the thought of having to deal with any shock rebuilding. I am even more troubled too think it would ever be mandatory.

[38bfast]

Just for reference I had a customer that had re valved fat cat shocks on his car with the comp up to the max limit and the rebound reduced. It was very clear after running them on my shock Dyno they were not out of the box shocks. He did not want to chance a DQ with them so we put out of the box shocks on the car. His lap times did not change at all. His tire wear is the same. He reported back that the car feels basically the same. He is a very good driver and I trust his feedback.

[38bfast]

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

If you are going to call someone out on a public fourm I expect to see you at the next race filing paperwork.

[BNaumann]

What happened to "if it doesn't say you can then you can't?" You forgot option 6 - spec the actual valve code. The 20%ers can change them back or buy new ones.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

This is so very wild not only is Chris an Alien driver I have also now been able to label myself as alien I have chosen a home planet of Pluto since he is one of my all time favorite Disney characters...

I have won over 15 races and lost count of podium appearances in regional, national, majors in multiple classes, every good result have been with out of box shocks and I don't mean a box from some bs revalved service!

I have bought two cars out of the 12 or so I have owned that came with these revalved shocks drove those cars at races and could not run even near the front on these revalved, taken those pos things off my car and brought car back a few weeks later to once again run same car without any change to my setup and run right at the front once again!

I have some snake oil in a bottle I can rub on every corner of your car and it will also make you a magical alien driver $100 per bottle please send checks payable to caveman racing!!!

[Parity]

IMO making rule changes to make these cars "drive like racecars" or simply to make them faster is not the sort of changes this class needs. Any proposed rule change to prevent or reduce modifications and improve cost effectiveness are what I'd like see. We shouldn't have to constantly be upgrading these cars to simply keep up with the pack. Club racing, especially SM, should not require everyone to have professionally prepped and maintained cars. 

[Tom Scheifler]

Club racing, especially SM, should not require everyone to have professionally prepped and maintained cars.

I agree but any class that gets 40+ cars at majors (and some regionals) will inevitably end up there.

[Bench Racer]

IMO making rule changes to make these cars "drive like racecars" or simply to make them faster is not the sort of changes this class needs. Any proposed rule change to prevent or reduce modifications and improve cost effectiveness are what I'd like see. We shouldn't have to constantly be upgrading these cars to simply keep up with the pack. Club racing, especially SM, should not require everyone to have professionally prepped and maintained cars. 

 Somehow reading the sentence in red (not aimed at Paul) is the exact reason we should not be using tires nearly as soft as we use. The continued costs associated with these soft tires should not be considered a part of the class philosophy.

[MPR22]

Somehow reading the sentence in red (not aimed at Paul) is the exact reason we should not be using tires nearly as soft as we use. The continued costs associated with these soft tires should not be considered a part of the class philosophy.

+1000

The most expensive part of our hobby and for some reason the least discussed. Put us on a harder spec tire get rid of contingencies. The reduced wear and tear on the car would be huge.

[Jim Drago]

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?

It is VERY clear you do not understand the class philosphy, which is not a nock or insult... We are an our own bunch, not what many other race classes are.  I understand it well, dont always agree with it personally and even chose sometimes not to follow class philoshy personally. But when on the SMAC, CRB or commenting on what is best for the class on this forum or conversations in general, I speak as to what is best for the class.  You are clouding the waters with the talk of bushings, engines and other things. Each one of those issues likely is/was rules creep in one way or another, but each was dealt with in what in the best way possible at the time by people who had the best interests of teh class at heart., people who really care about the prosperity of this class. Is it perfect? No, not by any means, but it is pretty dam good and i would argue it is the best thing going. 

 

In short, revalved shocks as a single issue, which is the only way that this can be looked at is a BAD idea. The best answer and I think the one that the SMAC is working on is a tighter spec that minimizes or eliminates any gains within those specs. These potential gains to most would not be worth the  $800-$1600 it costs. That is what is best for the class as a hole, to purchase out of the box shocks, bolt them on and have little concern about whether you "need" to spend an additional 800-1600 on shocks.. Guys like me and other class leaders are not the "majority" of the class, we are the minority. Most want to race on a budget and have a good time while doing so. None of us really care to go "faster" in general, just faster than the next guy. We all realize the limitations of of our suspension package and make the best of what we have. If we are all on the same out of the box shocks, versus $1000 plus set of revalved, the only difference we care about is the added cost to the racer. Cutting the overall lap time of the entire class is irrelevant.

 

As far as your question of my engine, of course not, it was built to the spec. Post race, it was disassembled and passed every inspecion put on it. If the same were done to these shocks, they would not pass a tear down. IMO, As inexpensive as these shocks are, I think they should disassemble two and just hand you two new ones in tech. I am sure billstein would take them apart and compare at little to no cost if SCCA were not able to do so.      

[Steve Scheifler]

IMO making rule changes to make these cars "drive like racecars" or simply to make them faster is not the sort of changes this class needs...

Paul, as I'm the one who uses that phrase I'll respond. My point is that for many young drivers this is a first step in what they hope will be many in racing. As such it is an early training experience where they learn how race cars work and how basic setup changes impact handling. Driver feedback and understanding of such things is very valuable and even considered by the likes of Mazda and others when evaluating drivers. I'm a few decades beyond being one of those kids but I still prefer to drive a car that responds and drives more like it should. For me it has nothing to do with wanting to make the class faster overall. Indeed, include me among those who wouldn't mind a slower more cost effective tire.

There have been several changes in the past which were done primarily for other reasons but had the bonus of making the cars act more like they should. In a perfect world, sure, I personally would pony up for entirely new shocks, and if needed springs at one or both ends to make these cars behave better. In the ways I've mentioned I think it would be good for the class but that is often the exact opposite of "popular" (think NB suspension for NA). I haven't ever actually proposed it or sent in a letter because I am likely in a very small minority. Next best IMO is to revise the official specs to better define "original" and clamp down on them to remove the perception of yet another have's vs have-nots.

[Jim Drago]

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.

Stroke is actually very easy measurement with head and valve cover on car. 

[Parity]

Paul, as I'm the one who uses that phrase I'll respond. My point is that for many young drivers this is a first step in what they hope will be many in racing. As such it is an early training experience where they learn how race cars work and how basic setup changes impact handling. Driver feedback and understanding of such things is very valuable and even considered by the likes of Mazda and others when evaluating drivers. I'm a few decades beyond being one of those kids but I still prefer to drive a car that responds and drives more like it should. For me it has nothing to do with wanting to make the class faster overall. Indeed, include me among those who wouldn't mind a slower more cost effective tire.

There have been several changes in the past which were done primarily for other reasons but had the bonus of making the cars act more like they should. In a perfect world, sure, I personally would pony up for entirely new shocks, and if needed springs at one or both ends to make these cars behave better. In the ways I've mentioned I think it would be good for the class but that is often the exact opposite of "popular" (think NB suspension for NA). I haven't ever actually proposed it or sent in a letter because I am likely in a very small minority. Next best IMO is to revise the official specs to better define "original" and clamp down on them to remove the perception of yet another have's vs have-nots.

Steve, I'm in agreement with this. As far as attracting young drivers, maybe it's the appeal of a low cost well attended class with top notch talent that draws them in. That's why I'd like to keep it that way.