226 replies to this topic

[Jim Drago]

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????

Am I allowed to bounce your car first to determine compliance?

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Am I allowed to bounce your car first to determine compliance?

 

yes

[Tom Hampton]

5 pages and 82 posts (now 83)...I think we can answer the question in the subject header:  "yes, we are." 

 

We may not have wanted to, or felt it had any value....but, through the mud we have been dragged. 

[Peter Olivola]

Your assertion that shocks are more important in autox than road racing.  But you knew that.  Now you're just trying to weasel out of having said it.

 

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. 

[Steve Scheifler]

Lively discussion if a bit unnecessarily harsh at times.  It seems to me that there has been some truth spoken from all sides but the average person might find it difficult to separate that from the uninformed, misinformed and hyperbole. 

 

If an aspiring driver being interviewed as part of the Road to 24 competition or by a pro team says something to the effect that shocks aren't very important, he will not receive high marks for technical setup knowledge.  And yet, I am confident that Jim's money is perfectly safe even if someone is foolish enough to take him up on his challenge.  There is a chasm between what is being claimed at either extreme and as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

The shocks are just one part of a system, the suspension system and to some degree the chassis. They are an important part, but they can do no more for you than is possible given the sum of the other parts.  That sounds obvious enough but now apply that to what we have in SM.  We are racing street cars which despite being impressive over-achievers are still far from purpose built race cars.  The upgraded springs, shocks and bars were selected for their availability, affordability and simplicity, not because they were anywhere near optimal collectively.  And it's collectively that matters.  There is no such thing as the "best" shock unless you already know the spring.  And likewise the anti-sways bars without knowing the others (in my book, if starting from scratch the bars come last, are relatively small and primarily for fine tuning).  In addition to the spec parts we are not allowed to correct issues with suspension geometry which result from lowering the car, which has a profound impact on the roll center and in turn how well the other parts function and what will function best.  It is a team, and they must play well together.

 

Over the years and with each change of tires people have found the sweet spots for the few adjustments that we are allowed, primarily height, camber, caster and toe.  Again, it's a system, one that you are trying to balance to your liking and you can't really talk meaningfully about what's best for any one of those without considering the rest.  A real race car is magnitudes more complex because it has so many more variables that can be controlled over broad ranges.  For us it is by design relatively simple to "optimize" what we are given even though the result is far from optimal by most standards.  So picture the system, each part and adjustment set to work as well as it can given the limitations imposed by the others.  What do you suppose happens when you pull out one piece of that system and replace it with a "better" piece but touch nothing else?  Did the person designing the better piece take your entire system and its flaws into account and then recommend other changes to re-optimize for this better piece?  I'm not surprised that people would be underwhelmed with reworked shocks if they just slap them on with no other changes.  And that "better" shock may actually be far worse if it was designed without due consideration of our specific issues or for a car with more flexibility in modifications and adjustments.  So Dave's experiment with adjustable race shocks yielding 0.2 improvement sounds reasonable for what I assume was very few attempts at getting driver feedback then adjusting them and trying again, and with few if any other adjustments.  It tells me that with an appropriately experienced driver and crew there is more to be gained, but the resulting shock settings might well be far out of spec so Jim's money would still be safe. (Edit: No slight on Dave here, I know his past include lot's of experience with real race cars.)

 

And this ties back in to the other raging topic, camber and whether to allow more adjustment.  Because of the impact on suspension geometry and therefore on springs, shocks and bars, ride height is a critical component of our system.  If people finding or fudging their way to more camber are using it to raise the car a bit for better geometry, that's likely to change how well the other components work and perhaps require another rethink of the optimal shock valving.  It would be interesting to first raise the car a few turns, reset camber to a reasonable baseline, then repeat the exercise re-tuning the entire system rather than just the shocks.  But that would require many sessions to do properly and would be totally useless to our class other than demonstrating that shocks do matter.

 

The bottom line is that in the right hands shocks can make a huge difference, but not likely from a simple swap into our typical setup.  In our case, if you have the SM package optimized to your liking and can drive it to the limit, then changing the shocks to someone else's formula and making no other adjustments is unlikely to impress you as a big improvement, and may just make you slower as some have said.  Even if you re-optimize the rest of the system (within the rules) the best you can hope for is relatively small, the rest of the system still sorta sucks.  So forget talk of a full second from a shock that passes even the earlier specs, the simple test of countless races over the years is proof enough, but if a total re-tune around those tweaked shocks is worth a solid 0.2 at his next majors, I'd probably bet Jim his $5k that he wouldn't give that up happily.    It doesn't have to be an 1 second issue to be a relevant issue.

 

gerglmuff2, I think Peter has been exceptionally harsh on you primarily for your use of certain terminology, but that aside there obviously are some significant differences between road racing and auto-x and it seems reasonable for you to examine those.  What you seemed not to consider when contemplating where shocks make a bigger difference is in the comparatively long stretches between corners where shocks aren't doing much but you are "banking" time saved as the result of improved exit speed.  We are indeed spending far less time working the shocks under cornering loads but even a slight improvement exiting a corner pays dividends long after the shocks are out of the picture.  That can be just as important as time spent in the corner, and often far more.   Anyway, stick around, more voices from people willing to think, discuss and rethink is good IMO.

[Richard Astacio]

I actually read the entire post above...thank you for your time and explaining..

 

Steve what do you do for a living?

[gerglmuff2]

Your assertion that shocks are more important in autox than road racing.  But you knew that.  Now you're just trying to weasel out of having said it.

i have said it in every post since. 

 

 

Lively discussion if a bit unnecessarily harsh at times.  It seems to me that there has been some truth spoken from all sides but the average person might find it difficult to separate that from the uninformed, misinformed and hyperbole. 

 

If an aspiring driver being interviewed as part of the Road to 24 competition or by a pro team says something to the effect that shocks aren't very important, he will not receive high marks for technical setup knowledge.  And yet, I am confident that Jim's money is perfectly safe even if someone is foolish enough to take him up on his challenge.  There is a chasm between what is being claimed at either extreme and as usual the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

The shocks are just one part of a system, the suspension system and to some degree the chassis. They are an important part, but they can do no more for you than is possible given the sum of the other parts.  That sounds obvious enough but now apply that to what we have in SM.  We are racing street cars which despite being impressive over-achievers are still far from purpose built race cars.  The upgraded springs, shocks and bars were selected for their availability, affordability and simplicity, not because they were anywhere near optimal collectively.  And it's collectively that matters.  There is no such thing as the "best" shock unless you already know the spring.  And likewise the anti-sways bars without knowing the others (in my book, if starting from scratch the bars come last, are relatively small and primarily for fine tuning).  In addition to the spec parts we are not allowed to correct issues with suspension geometry which result from lowering the car, which has a profound impact on the roll center and in turn how well the other parts function and what will function best.  It is a team, and they must play well together.

 

Over the years and with each change of tires people have found the sweet spots for the few adjustments that we are allowed, primarily height, camber, caster and toe.  Again, it's a system, one that you are trying to balance to your liking and you can't really talk meaningfully about what's best for any one of those without considering the rest.  A real race car is magnitudes more complex because it has so many more variables that can be controlled over broad ranges.  For us it is by design relatively simple to "optimize" what we are given even though the result is far from optimal by most standards.  So picture the system, each part and adjustment set to work as well as it can given the limitations imposed by the others.  What do you suppose happens when you pull out one piece of that system and replace it with a "better" piece but touch nothing else?  Did the person designing the better piece take your entire system and its flaws into account and then recommend other changes to re-optimize for this better piece?  I'm not surprised that people would be underwhelmed with reworked shocks if they just slap them on with no other changes.  And that "better" shock may actually be far worse if it was designed without due consideration of our specific issues or for a car with more flexibility in modifications and adjustments.  So Dave's experiment with adjustable race shocks yielding 0.2 improvement sounds reasonable for what I assume was very few attempts at getting driver feedback then adjusting them and trying again, and with few if any other adjustments.  It tells me that with an appropriately experienced driver and crew there is more to be gained, but the resulting shock settings might well be far out of spec so Jim's money would still be safe. (Edit: No slight on Dave here, I know his past include lot's of experience with real race cars.)

 

And this ties back in to the other raging topic, camber and whether to allow more adjustment.  Because of the impact on suspension geometry and therefore on springs, shocks and bars, ride height is a critical component of our system.  If people finding or fudging their way to more camber are using it to raise the car a bit for better geometry, that's likely to change how well the other components work and perhaps require another rethink of the optimal shock valving.  It would be interesting to first raise the car a few turns, reset camber to a reasonable baseline, then repeat the exercise re-tuning the entire system rather than just the shocks.  But that would require many sessions to do properly and would be totally useless to our class other than demonstrating that shocks do matter.

 

The bottom line is that in the right hands shocks can make a huge difference, but not likely from a simple swap into our typical setup.  In our case, if you have the SM package optimized to your liking and can drive it to the limit, then changing the shocks to someone else's formula and making no other adjustments is unlikely to impress you as a big improvement, and may just make you slower as some have said.  Even if you re-optimize the rest of the system (within the rules) the best you can hope for is relatively small, the rest of the system still sorta sucks.  So forget talk of a full second from a shock that passes even the earlier specs, the simple test of countless races over the years is proof enough, but if a total re-tune around those tweaked shocks is worth a solid 0.2 at his next majors, I'd probably bet Jim his $5k that he wouldn't give that up happily.    It doesn't have to be an 1 second issue to be a relevant issue.

 

gerglmuff2, I think Peter has been exceptionally harsh on you primarily for your use of certain terminology, but that aside there obviously are some significant differences between road racing and auto-x and it seems reasonable for you to examine those.  What you seemed not to consider when contemplating where shocks make a bigger difference is in the comparatively long stretches between corners where shocks aren't doing much but you are "banking" time saved as the result of improved exit speed.  We are indeed spending far less time working the shocks under cornering loads but even a slight improvement exiting a corner pays dividends long after the shocks are out of the picture.  That can be just as important as time spent in the corner, and often far more.   Anyway, stick around, more voices from people willing to think, discuss and rethink is good IMO.

 

i think this sums it up well.  see also, i never said shocks are not important in road racing.

the only thing i would say is that by definition the shock is not doing anything when the suspension is nominally not moving. it can't. a damper is first derivative device. the argument is simply that the frequency and magnitude, and time as a percent of a lap-time, that the shock is being worked, is much higher in autocross. as a result, when determining where to spend precious time and money, in autocross, you go buy/test/valve your shocks better. in spec miata, you go and buy a better engine. because 3hp matters more to your lap time than idealized shocks, compared to 3hp not mattering one bit in autocross, and shocks making a huge difference. 

you do different things with your cars, and different parts will be more important than other parts. that isn't crazy, thats just engineering, spend your resources where they make they biggest difference. 

no where does this statement disagree with the notion that having even a slight advantage in corner exit speed, adding up to several mph at the end of a long straight. thats just basic driving 101, in fact i stated as such much earlier in saying that having a digressive rebound that blows off at high frequency would probably allow for esp over curbing, with a torsen diff, you to get on the power earlier and thus be faster. getting on the power even 5 feet sooner is a big advantage in our low powered cars. 

i think there are some assumptions that based on me being new to road racing, me not understanding fundamentals about suspension function or driving technique. its understandable, if annoying to have to sit here and say "yeah, i knew that, knowing that is why i think what i think" 

[Tom Sager]

So to sum up this thread, virtually all competitors that visit here look forward to a tighter shock rule for 2018? 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

 virtually 

[Steve Scheifler]

gerglmuff2, I feel your pain. As long as my post seems to some, others are shaking their head at my oversimplifications of the impact of suspension geometry, selecting the right mix of parts, and the process of tuning the system, which done right on a real race car is not just track by track but corner by corner based on their importance and the likely impact of a given change on the rest, all the while doing the same with respect to the driver.  It is necessary to condense a lot and difficult to hit the right points without losing half the audience and being ridiculed by the other half.  Hopefully you noticed that I prefaced my bit about corner exit with "What you seemed not to consider..." which to me can be at least as important in road racing as your observations are to auto-x.  Anyway, when running as closely as we do, very few things are totally irrelevant so we tend to obsess over something like this.

[Steve Scheifler]

...

 

Steve what do you do for a living?

 

Software developer, programmer, whatever we're calling it these days, with a sub-specialty of performance tuning.  Interesting parallels in that so many companies throw huge $$ at hardware upgrades to achieve at best incremental improvements, when the real problem is a bunch of under-supervised junior programmers without a single clue about designing and coding for performance.  Death by a thousands cuts etc.

[gerglmuff2]

gerglmuff2, I feel your pain. As long as my post seems to some, others are shaking their head at my oversimplifications of the impact of suspension geometry, selecting the right mix of parts, and the process of tuning the system, which done right on a real race car is not just track by track but corner by corner based on their importance and the likely impact of a given change on the rest, all the while doing the same with respect to the driver.  It is necessary to condense a lot and difficult to hit the right points without losing half the audience and being ridiculed by the other half.  Hopefully you noticed that I prefaced my bit about corner exit with "What you seemed not to consider..." which to me can be at least as important in road racing as your observations are to auto-x.  Anyway, when running as closely as we do, very few things are totally irrelevant so we tend to obsess over something like this.

 

yes, i did. the internet makes it doubly hard to both present a compelling and concise post, and delve into enough detail to show that you have considered and understand implications beyond the content of the post, and thats why you think you think. esp when reputation and resume are often the determining factors. 

i mean racing is racing, we all want to be at the limit of the rulebook, which is why having such strange and random shock specs is frustrating for everyone, both those that want to revalve, and those that don't. 

I'm the camp of "here is the list of the stuff i'd have to do to be at the limit of the rulebook, and i'd like to cross off as much as possible please" if thats send my shocks to be revalved, well then thats what has to happen, if i don't have to, that makes me happy. i guess i care less what the rule is, provided its clear, enforceable, and cheap. personally, setting a rod force spec on the top and bottom makes the most sense to me, but maybe there are details i am missing. 

[MPR22]

The less I think about what the car is doing the faster I go.  Just use the force and drive what she gives you.  That is Spec Miata. 

[Johnny D]

yes, i did. the internet makes it doubly hard to both present a compelling and concise post, and delve into enough detail to show that you have considered and understand implications beyond the content of the post, and thats why you think you think. esp when reputation and resume are often the determining factors. 

i mean racing is racing, we all want to be at the limit of the rulebook, which is why having such strange and random shock specs is frustrating for everyone, both those that want to revalve, and those that don't. 

I'm the camp of "here is the list of the stuff i'd have to do to be at the limit of the rulebook, and i'd like to cross off as much as possible please" if thats send my shocks to be revalved, well then thats what has to happen, if i don't have to, that makes me happy. i guess i care less what the rule is, provided its clear, enforceable, and cheap. personally, setting a rod force spec on the top and bottom makes the most sense to me, but maybe there are details i am missing. 

 

I hope you check out the rest of the site if you haven't already. Most hit the "New Content" button upper right if you on a desktop, look for the button on the phone.

 

Also there's the search box upper right. I doesn't work great but it works if you put more than 3 letters in. otherwise you can google this site and what you're looking for.

 

Also check out the items lower right on a persons post. Show what they've done.  MPR22 is a NASA Champ Winner, Majors, etc.  Jim Drago is a Hoosier Tour Champ, site owner and alot more.

 

Welcome,

 

J~

[scott sanda]

What a long thread:

 

of course revalving or "optimally valving" shocks is worth time.  Absolutely there are people in SM, and every class that requires "stock" shocks that are revalving and reworking their internals.  It goes back to the dawn of time.

 

I think I read a line from Jim somewhere in there that he would, or could, or did (and this isn't criticism) bring a bunch of sets, and test them all to find the best combination.  This is also a time honored practice.  Flow 100 manifolds to find the extra HP, weigh 100 pistons and find the 4 lightest, etc.

 

if the goal is shock parity, then do the trans AM TA 2 thing: Any double adjustable shock under X $$ per shock.  Now everyone can run exactly the same.

 

If the goal is cost, then don't change a thing, because what you do now works, and works well.

 

Don't dyno shocks, open them up and look for non stock or modified components. Put in draconian penalties.

 

Do the Supercup thing. Make the top 10 qualifiers turn their shocks into tech, then hand them out at random......

 

And, every now and then i agree with Peter   Anyone who thinks shocks are more important to autocross than road racing is not someone you should be using as a technical reference.  If that same person also thinks you cannot find as much time with shocks as you can with 3 HP, then doubly don't use them. There is a reason top teams like Blackdog and Kelly Moss run 4 way and 5 way adjustable shocks when they can. of course, that pre supposes that the driver can differentiate.  Most of us have enough trouble with double adjustable s......

[Fat Cat]

Video I recorded today, interview with an SM racer with 10 years experience in the class:

 

 

"We've been doing it for probably 10 years. And definitely a shock valving was more comfortable on our old, broken bodies. The previous shocks were like having a 2x4 beat you in the back all the time. The revalving was much more comfortable and the car was easier to drive."

 

"I can't say there's a performance improvement but just the drivability of the car was much easier and not so much bouncing - the car just seemed to bounce a lot. And definitely is a lot better controlled with the revalving that's been done."

 

"It was a, for the cost, for benefit, was much better than any performance things that we'd ever done. There's been engine work with a couple different engine builders and there's definitely been some improvement there. But definitely for bang for the buck for comfort and performance was definitely worthwhile."

 

"I did not do any exact timing differences but I do feel that just giving us the confidence in the car would make us definitely faster and knowing that the car's going to have better grip, and is more stable, comfort is so much in the car. That's why you put a good seat in the car, is for comfort. And if you're more comfortable in the car, you're definitely going to be, hmm ... definitely, probably faster in it, definitely have a lot more fun."

 

"And that's the key thing for us is the fun factor. And as we're getting older, it's getting harder to have fun with less pain!"

 

(Q: If you were required to go back to an out-of-the-box shock, how would you feel about that?)

 

"I would be very disappointed."

 

"Well, I'm not that to be honest I would deter anyone from doing it because of that, but I would think that just so many people spent the money on this, and it's a minor mod compared to other things that people spend a lot of money on. But I just think it's a very cost-effective way to make the class a lot more driveable and fun and enjoyable."

[Fat Cat]

By the way, this is the shim stack I've been currently using for the front FCM-SM-MAX Spec Miata valves:

 

Compression: 14x0.25, 36x0.70 (2x), 18x0.10, 36x0.15, 4p15, 18x0.30, 3prong0.20 check valve spring and disc;

 

Rebound: 28x0.35, 2p15, 36x60, 36x0.50, 16.0x0.50, 2x1.5mm holes

 

and for the rear:

 

Compression: 14x0.25, 36x0.60 (2x), 18x0.10, 36x0.15, 4p15, 20x0.25, 3prong0.20 check valve spring and disc;

 

Rebound: 28x0.30, 4p15, 36x0.15, 36x0.35, 36x0.30, 28x0.45, 24x0.45, 18.0x0.50, 2x1.5mm holes

 

For those concerned about a 'single source' who has the secret sauce recipe - you're welcome!

 

For improving the class moving forward, let's make a TRUE Spec Miata Bilstein with more optimized shock valving that you can buy from Bilstein or Mazdaspeed! Either use this valving or something that doesn't require drilling the piston (which Bilstein wouldn't want to do en mass).

[Caveman-kwebb99]

I never quoted any time advantages but just one racer said he went a second faster at the same track within a couple weeks due to the shock change...

Great advertisement right there...

Anonymous because why? The shocks pass tech as you stated no? This guy is surely winning races now he changed to nasa and the car is comfortable now?

[Jim Drago]

This guy is surely winning races now he changed to nasa and the car is comfortable now?

definitely, probably 

[Caveman-kwebb99]

definitely, probably

That voice sounded like Frank Todaro no? I know he is fast when he is riding on a bean bag chair!