So why the spec/numbers ??
You may not want to say " I'd would " either
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.