226 replies to this topic

[Peter Olivola]

Don't flatter yourself.  This isn't politics.  Your comments about shocks being more important in autox than road racing stand.  In error.

 

we are yelling a each other in agreement. 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

  This isn't politics.  

 

It is funny I have had the feeling this whole thread was a politically motivated thread...

[gerglmuff2]

Don't flatter yourself.  This isn't politics.  Your comments about shocks being more important in autox than road racing stand.  In error.

 

i don't really care. what you stated i should have said, is the exact idea i was trying to communicate. autocross has more violent and more frequent transitional periods, it is farther from steady state, this means that the part of the chassis designed to deal with such motion in transition, the shocks, are more important to get near or at optimum. 

i think there is plenty of evidence in this thread alone that is correct. if baller race shocks on a spec miata only account for .2 of a second, whereas in autocross baller shocks can be a half, or more of a second, on a 30-60 second course ... i mean, that settles it for me. shocks are more important to get right in autocross than spec miata. 

[Sean - MiataCage]

#allshocksmatter

[Chris Ciufo]

[MPR22]

we are yelling at each other in agreement. 

happens a lot around here.

[Johnny D]

This is a blatantly false statement. 

 

You'll have to prove intent.

 

Oh, sorry, wrong thread. Carry on.

 

 

J~

[Brandon]

The SMAC's recomendation was that any shock found outside of the spec should be disassembled to see if it was out of spec due to alteration or wear/damage. Worn or damaged shocks would not result in a DQ.

 

This is the first I've heard of this process. Has anyone witnessed or experienced this as part of an inspection of a suspect part?

 

Having also been part of the SMAC, this very topic was discussed over two years ago and the consensus was opening shocks at the track was not viable (to confirm a potential dyno measurement non-compliance) so we were left with alternatives from Bilstein - tightening the manufacturing tolerances or using a different shock body that was effectively unrebuildable (destroyed the tube/body when opened). Neither of which were pursued as part of a rules refinement while I was a member.

[Johnny D]

 

I offer this challenge.. 

At ANY Super Tour test event test day in the 18 season... 

 

You pick any SM driver of the top 25 in supertour points in 2017..

We install the best shocks you can build that pass the current spec

We run two sessions on your shocks... two sessions on stock shocks..

No suspension or set up changes other than correcting toe.

 

If your shocks are faster by 1.0 second plus relative to the field average ( temp and track compensation)  I'll pay you $5000, if they aren't you pay me $5000.00 and look at how many shock rebuilds you will sell. 

 

You can structure the rules however you like as long as they encompass the general feel of what I mentioned above.. I'll provide all the labor and scales to verify set up and can give a list of drivers that would be more than willing to drive in this test. 

 

The entire shock deal is being blown out of proportion IMO 

 

THIS CHALLENGE WAS OFFERED UP EARLIER... NOW YOU WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DOING YOUR OWN TESTING, OH UNLESS THE SHOCK GODS DONT SHOW UP WITH THEIR SUPER SHOCKS TO DO SAID TESTING, I SUSPECT THEY WILL NOT AS I BELEIVE THESE CLAIMS OF AN ADVANTAGE TO BE A BLATANT LIE, AND I WILL STILL WITH MY OUT OF THE BOX SHOCKS THAT ARE ON BOTH OF MY CARS!

 

 

 

Why don't you have the winners of any Majors race offer up there shocks for sale right afterwards. Race winning shocks!! Get them while they're hot.

 

J~

[Peter Olivola]

You're assuming rebuilt shocks on an SM have been truly optimized.  They have not.  They have only been optimized, if at all, within the units used.  Again, revealing your ignorance of the subject as it applies to road racing.

 

i don't really care. what you stated i should have said, is the exact idea i was trying to communicate. autocross has more violent and more frequent transitional periods, it is farther from steady state, this means that the part of the chassis designed to deal with such motion in transition, the shocks, are more important to get near or at optimum. 

i think there is plenty of evidence in this thread alone that is correct. if baller race shocks on a spec miata only account for .2 of a second, whereas in autocross baller shocks can be a half, or more of a second, on a 30-60 second course ... i mean, that settles it for me. shocks are more important to get right in autocross than spec miata. 

[Brandon]

We even reviewed data from Runoffs. Side note, there were 2 cars in the LCQ that had modified illegal shocks. Without any wording in the GCR, nothing was done. Thus we have added the new wording about shock modifications, more to clarify it is not legal and give tech the distinct ability to act on revalved shocks, not to suddenly make revalved shocks illegal. From the data it is quite clear which shocks have been modified and which haven't. No spec/numbers needed to see the difference.

 

Has there been an additional attribute or reference captured as part of an inspection which is giving rise to this clarification? Something beyond what's already been published in the SCCA tech bulletin (pressures at specific rod rates)? If there is another point of reference captured/observed (that could be used to pursue a secondary check) during a test of a shock, should this parameter be shared with all competitors?

 

As competitors, I know we're not allowed to protest items outside of the GCR (namely procedure manuals and processes) however if there is a graph that's referenced in the "shock dyno testing process" (note bolded portion of the above quote) that could be used to bounce a part as non-compliant (or at least trigger a further teardown offsite) while the part meets all other parameters put forth (GCR + tech bulletin), how is this a good result for anyone?

 

I'm not asking this as a customer of FCM but as an SCCA member who agrees to compete with a car that is compliant with all posted rules and regulations for the car. If there is an unpublished variable that can be referenced to declare one of my parts non-compliant which I cannot protest, this is not something I want to see implemented or wish to support.

 

To be clear, I'm not asking these questions in an effort to uncover or claim any sort of conspiracy with tech procedures or a back-room change to things but to truly understand what obligations we have as entrants in this class should this rule move forward. If there is a visual reference that's available for use then I would hope we would have access to it in an effort to ensure our own components are compliant. To not have any mechanism to verify the compliance of parts is not something I believe the SCCA would want to see enacted.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 

 

I'm not asking this as a customer of FCM but as an SCCA member who agrees to compete with a car that is compliant with all posted rules and regulations for the car. If there is an unpublished variable that can be referenced to declare one of my parts non-compliant which I cannot protest, this is not something I want to see implemented or wish to support.

 

To be clear, I'm not asking these questions in an effort to uncover or claim any sort of conspiracy with tech procedures or a back-room change to things but to truly understand what obligations we have as entrants in this class should this rule move forward. If there is a visual reference that's available for use then I would hope we would have access to it in an effort to ensure our own components are compliant. To not have any mechanism to verify the compliance of parts is not something I believe the SCCA would want to see enacted.

 

 

If you are running out of the box stock shocks is there really any fear???  I personally have zero, with the way this is written if they want to swap me a shock and take mine apart later I welcome that if it stops this nonsense of 1500 shock revalves etc.

[ChrisA]

i don't really care. what you stated i should have said, is the exact idea i was trying to communicate. autocross has more violent and more frequent transitional periods, it is farther from steady state, this means that the part of the chassis designed to deal with such motion in transition, the shocks, are more important to get near or at optimum.

SEBRING

[BNaumann]

You want a visual reference, see Shaikh's video. I admire his transparency.

If you want to be compliant, run box-stock shocks.

There is a part number on the shock. That part number defines a valve code. The characteristic curve can be an indicator something is modified. Compliance can be verified by tear down.

I honestly believe there is virtually no advantage to be gained by blueprinting or sorting. If the right parts are in the shock, it should be legal.

[Brandon]

If you are running out of the box stock shocks is there really any fear???  I personally have zero, with the way this is written if they want to swap me a shock and take mine apart later I welcome that if it stops this nonsense of 1500 shock revalves etc.

 

Per the GCR and the tech bulletin, if I have mine dynoed and they're within published specs there should be no issues with the shocks on a car I just bought.

However if there is an alternative value or reference used as part of the tech procedure, that I do not have access to, which would show my shocks as non-compliant and subsequent confiscation/DQ, what resource do I have as a competitor at that time?

 

If the answer is "Bought a pre-built car? You should replace all of your shocks!" that's not exactly a customer friendly approach to setting and enforcing rules unless they're offering an exchange program for situations like this.

 

Similarly, should they offer to perform testing of shocks for a reasonable expense and it includes some sort of sealing or "confirmed good" then I could see this being a supportable rule change.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Per the GCR and the tech bulletin, if I have mine dynoed and they're within published specs there should be no issues with the shocks on a car I just bought.

However if there is an alternative value or reference used as part of the tech procedure, that I do not have access to, which would show my shocks as non-compliant and subsequent confiscation/DQ, what resource do I have as a competitor at that time?

 

If the answer is "Bought a pre-built car? You should replace all of your shocks!" that's not exactly a customer friendly approach to setting and enforcing rules unless they're offering an exchange program for situations like this.

 

Similarly, should they offer to perform testing of shocks for a reasonable expense and it includes some sort of sealing or "confirmed good" then I could see this being a supportable rule change.

 

some good points i suppose...  I just dont think we need to make a super big deal of this myself.  I am sure you can send your shocks into scca tech and have them tested to know for sure. 

 

I know what as on my cars is out of box and striaight onto the car so I have zero fear either way.   Once they are opened and looked at tech would see that in seconds.

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Why don't you have the winners of any Majors race offer up there shocks for sale right afterwards. Race winning shocks!! Get them while they're hot.

 

J~

Ok, its been a while since I was able to win a majors, but I have one plenty of regionals and finished ahead of the 16 national champion... My shocks are for sale immediatly after any event I win. I will take $125 each, plus you hand me new shocks in the box to put on the car.  That fair enough????

[gerglmuff2]

You're assuming rebuilt shocks on an SM have been truly optimized.  They have not.  They have only been optimized, if at all, within the units used.  Again, revealing your ignorance of the subject as it applies to road racing.

 

no, i am not.

testing would be required for optimization, revalving or binning would be the method to get there. 

seriously, i have no idea what you trying to argue about at this point. 

[BNaumann]

Per the GCR and the tech bulletin, if I have mine dynoed and they're within published specs there should be no issues with the shocks on a car I just bought.
However if there is an alternative value or reference used as part of the tech procedure, that I do not have access to, which would show my shocks as non-compliant and subsequent confiscation/DQ, what resource do I have as a competitor at that time?

If the answer is "Bought a pre-built car? You should replace all of your shocks!" that's not exactly a customer friendly approach to setting and enforcing rules unless they're offering an exchange program for situations like this.

Similarly, should they offer to perform testing of shocks for a reasonable expense and it includes some sort of sealing or "confirmed good" then I could see this being a supportable rule change.

Unfortunately it is buyer beware. If you buy a car are you going to *completely* tear it down and verify there are no cheats or take the buyer's word for it? Look at it this way, you can play dumb, cheat your shocks and have plausible deniability towards your "intentional conduct" penalty if you ever get caught. 😁

They really fucked the dog by publishing that spec - it's as worthless as Shaikh says it is.

[Danica Davison]

happens a lot around here.

 

NO IT DOESNT