As much as it might pain him to hear , I agree with Todd's responses to FC. But I would like to be very clear on what is being proposed going forward because it may have gotten lost in all the other discussion.
We know that the shock specifications used by tech until now still allow considerable reshaping of the response curves, but they were designed to accommodate production variances and change due to normal use, and probably a good deal more. Fans of a low-rebound approach (popular a decade before FC got involved) probably weren't deterred much.
Question 1: Will the rules clarification revise those specification boundaries in any way? If yes, will they be published?
As I understand it: (Please correct me where I am mistaken)
- Whatever the exact dyno test specifications/limits, tech will also be empowered to do a visual comparison of the curve to those taken from numerous unmodified shocks and use their judgement to determine whether the shock is likely modified from original. (Arguably, this is not so different from visual inspection of any physical part to a stock one from Mazda)
- Tech will also have the latitude to conclude from visual inspection that although a shock fails against a particular specification that it is the result of wear or damage and requires no further action (or perhaps test the other shocks from that car depending on circumstances).
- If a shock technically passes the dyno test but there is reason to suspect it has been modified, tech has the option to issue a DQ, confiscate the shock and have it disassembled at a later date for confirmation.
Is that an accurate summation?
Question 2: Do the proposed changes allow tech to DQ a competitor for evidence that the shock has been "opened" even if there is no other evidence that it has been modified with respect to valving?
I have had a lot of shocks tested, using three different shops over the years. Because I'm typically working on two or more cars at a time I have always sent in at least three full sets and as many as seven. I never did get back at least 4 sets from one shop because after pulling out the best matched sets the rest were non-compliant and/or not worth keeping unless I had them overhauled. Back then the new ones were reasonably consistent so I just ordered more of those, and had them tested. Since then our "spec" shock has changed and from what I've seen they are less consistent even though still within the wide specifications allowed by the guidelines used in tech.
I mention this only because regardless of any rule and enforcement changes there will still be some value in having shocks tested and matched, and even choosing which side of the car gets which shock from a set. It's not going to make a huge difference but it will remain one of those "top prep" items that the most meticulous among us will continue to do if for no other reason than we can.
I'm not sure that the SCCA is equipped for a flood of shock testing, but those looking to have their shocks dynoed over the winter, for whatever reason, might want to check with V2 Motorsports. They've seen a lot of both stock and modified SM shocks.