226 replies to this topic

[Caveman-kwebb99]

https://m.youtube.co...h?v=0d5eP0wWLQY. This guy thought his shit was legit to...

[Tom Sager]

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"

 

That is hitting the nail on the head right there.  You're making a great argument for spec dampers and no modification allowed.  Otherwise it's one more think to buy, test, evaluate, potentially revise and do over again.  If tuned dampers are permitted there will be somebody out there or several somebody's that are using track specific or even weather specific tunes.  Once that starts the perception alone that you have to do that to compete (even if it's a false premise) potentially creates more time and investment for a lot of competitors.  The more we are all the same the better.  Only potential downside to a tighter rule and more enforcement is the lost investment by any who have purchased dampers that won't pass future inspections, but that is the risk one takes when going into the grey area. 

 

As Steve pointed out, the spring/shock/swaybar combination we have has a lot of room for improvement but change for change sake doesn't make the racing better, simpler or cheaper and even my older bones don't mind getting thrashed around in the car. 

[Fat Cat]

Hey Jim, these look familiar? Standard Spec Miata front in red, your super-stiff Spec Miata dampers in green, and the STL revalve we did (that you said ate your tires) in purple.

 

 

You gave me some REALLY stiff SM dampers to use as a basis for your STL car. I'd certainly make them softer now, but that was 2012 and I've learned a few things since...

 

I don't recall you communicating any feedback on your STL car. I'd have been happy to work with you and even revise the damping at a discount or free given your support for me in the SM community. When I built the STL set, I softened to a range I felt would be workable but it was still very stiff.

 

You were using 225 Hoosiers, aero, and wanted to maintain some bump stop engagement hence the rebound-heavy / jacking down bias. With what I know now, on an STL/HPDE track Miata I'd use less low/mid/high-speed rebound, and less low-speed bump as well. I've realized that while many racers seem to favor the 'feel' of overly-stiff setups, especially having gotten used to the over-stiff SM Bilsteins, that kind of tuning accelerates tire wear. Your experience back then certainly isn't indicative of my subsequent experience and results the past ~5 years. I can't improve what I don't hear about.

 

===

 

Back to today -

 

Shocks are vitally important for a road race car, especially since you have higher average speeds. A car at 70-100 mph is getting in much higher velocities than one at 30-50 mph. That's not even considering berms / rumble strips which autocrossers don't have to contend with.

 

VIDEO - A dyno graph comparison of as-received SM Bilstein valving to factory 99-05 Showa dampers, FCM SM-MAX, and FCM 'unrestricted' HPDE/TT track valving:

 

 

Even the stock Showa has more compression than the SM Bilstein! When it comes to road race / HPDE / TT Miatas, I and other tuners have used more compression and far less rebound very effectively compared to the as-received SM dampers. The SM Bilsteins are no yardstick to measure 'goodness of fit' against.

 

In terms of suitability, I argue that the SM Bilsteins are designed for softer springs and circle track, not stiff springs and road racing. The design intent for the current SM Bilstein was to keep the car on the bump stops ALL the time. It doesn't take a genius to see or feel this. When you consider limitations for a Showroom Stock Miata, that NASCAR philosophy will work for a softly-sprung car (~170F / 110R lb/in springs) because you can't legally throw on 3x higher spring rates within rule limitations.

 

But the same idea of 'jacking into the bump stops' IS NOT appropriate or anywhere near optimal for a Spec Miata that IS ALREADY running 3x higher spring rates (700F / 325R lb/in)!  For an SM, the stiffer springs and sways work together to control the chassis, so the SM dampers don't need to be 'jack' the car into the bump stops. That jacking behavior effectively KILLS your suspension travel and mandates that you're going to be using the tire sidewall as your main spring once you've lost all shock travel bouncing around on the bump stops. There's NO suspension travel through rough / broken sections of track, no compliance when dealing with berms / seams, and the driver is absolutely suffering with an uncomfortable and less predictable Spec Miata. How is this something we 'must keep as-is', especially when there's an existing shock rules that lets an intelligent shock tuner correct these deficiencies?

 

I've worked with several SM racers who went to ITA and kept the same suspension setup (springs / sways / bump stops / ride heights / alignment) and only had me change the damping to our more 'unrestricted', track-maximized valving. They ALL picked up time, noted the car was easier to drive, etc. A better damping profile will show up SOTP and in lap times. Even a middling driving will notice and be able to take advantage of this provided you give at least a little room for the suspension to work (not lower it right onto the bump stops).

 

I'm in favor of tightening the max forces and extending the velocities, but not if that means the racer has to suffer with a damper that's clearly and demonstrably too stiff to begin with. The 1990-1997 Bilstein (used in all Spec Miatas) factory valving, to the extent that it was based on a softer-sprung Showroom Stock suspension, isn't what a stiffer-sprung SM actually needs.

 

By being forced to run an unmodified damper, the SM racer loses in many ways. They have a harsher-than-necessary suspension, increased tire wear, less stable braking, worsened wet weather compliance, and have to scratch their heads about the inevitable lower shock bushing wear that everyone can see with their own eyes. Creating a better SM 'off-the-shelf' damper was my goal a couple years ago when I was talking with SCCA, NASA, Mazdaspeed, and Bilstein. The steps to create a new damper require engineering resources from Bilstein that might not be deemed worth allocating. AFAIK, that's where things were left. Maybe it's time to really push for that to happen so a properly-tuned, out-of-the-box shock can be purchased for $125 each. I already published my current valving specs above, and without having to modify the piston (my earlier SM-X valving) or create that 'trick' compression curve, you would still have an improved damper over what's there now - with all the observed benefits.

 

Again, keep in mind: by REDUCING high-speed rebound, you clearly have a more user-friendly, easier-to-drive, less harsh SM. That video I posted above comments on the cars being less abusive and more fun to drive. Do these considerations that impact the racer not matter to SMAC & SCCA? Simply arguing 'the shock is the shock, it should be used as-is' ASSUMES it was designed appropriately for the class. Evidence, both analytical and anecedotal, indicates that's not the case. NASCAR oval track philosophy =/= Spec Miata road racing. A softer (rebounding) SM damper is better for the class in many ways, driver preference aside. How a revised or clarified shock spec looks can be hashed out, but I feel it's important to look at intent of the original damper design when deciding if the 'as-received' Bilstein is fundamentally correct for this application.

 

For the average driver this might account for a second (or less, or more) a lap. For the top-level driver, perhaps less since they're more talented to begin with the gain might be less since they can work around behaviors that a less talented driver would be fighting. However, I have had feedback from a number of racers who seem very competent (based on their results, including a few Nat'l Champs who've used my damper tuning) that the gains are there once you learn what the improved suspension is capable of.

 

Is acknowledging and taking into account the FACT that softer rebound alone in a Spec Miata damper creates a host of benefits a bad thing for the Spec Miata series and SM racers?!

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Damn Jim no wonder you have been beating me...

[Caveman-kwebb99]

Please show the Danny Steyn graph next!

[Todd Lamb]

 

Even the stock Showa has more compression than the SM Bilstein! When it comes to road race / HPDE / TT Miatas, I and other tuners have used more compression and far less rebound very effectively compared to the as-received SM dampers. The SM Bilsteins are no yardstick to measure 'goodness of fit' against.

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class. Triple adjustable Penskes would have different compression and rebound as well, and we would probably pick up 1-2 seconds a lap at a cost of $10k+.

 

In terms of suitability, I argue that the SM Bilsteins are designed for softer springs and circle track, not stiff springs and road racing. The design intent for the current SM Bilstein was to keep the car on the bump stops ALL the time. It doesn't take a genius to see or feel this. When you consider limitations for a Showroom Stock Miata, that NASCAR philosophy will work for a softly-sprung car (~170F / 110R lb/in springs) because you can't legally throw on 3x higher spring rates within rule limitations.

 

But the same idea of 'jacking into the bump stops' IS NOT appropriate or anywhere near optimal for a Spec Miata that IS ALREADY running 3x higher spring rates (700F / 325R lb/in)!  For an SM, the stiffer springs and sways work together to control the chassis, so the SM dampers don't need to be 'jack' the car into the bump stops. That jacking behavior effectively KILLS your suspension travel and mandates that you're going to be using the tire sidewall as your main spring once you've lost all shock travel bouncing around on the bump stops. There's NO suspension travel through rough / broken sections of track, no compliance when dealing with berms / seams, and the driver is absolutely suffering with an uncomfortable and less predictable Spec Miata. How is this something we 'must keep as-is', especially when there's an existing shock rules that lets an intelligent shock tuner correct these deficiencies?

 

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class. Nothing about the cars is optimal, nor does it need to be. A 9 speed paddle shift gearbox that never broke would be more "optimal", but it does nothing for the class. There's no compelling reason for us to change the rules so you can make money off the racers selling something the class does not need.

 

I've worked with several SM racers who went to ITA and kept the same suspension setup (springs / sways / bump stops / ride heights / alignment) and only had me change the damping to our more 'unrestricted', track-maximized valving. They ALL picked up time, noted the car was easier to drive, etc. A better damping profile will show up SOTP and in lap times. Even a middling driving will notice and be able to take advantage of this provided you give at least a little room for the suspension to work (not lower it right onto the bump stops).

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class. Also, of course they would pick up time, ITA has less restrictive rules across the board.

 

I'm in favor of tightening the max forces and extending the velocities, but not if that means the racer has to suffer with a damper that's clearly and demonstrably too stiff to begin with. The 1990-1997 Bilstein (used in all Spec Miatas) factory valving, to the extent that it was based on a softer-sprung Showroom Stock suspension, isn't what a stiffer-sprung SM actually needs.

 

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class. The only thing the racers are suffering at the moment is your sales pitch.

 

By being forced to run an unmodified damper, the SM racer loses in many ways. They have a harsher-than-necessary suspension, increased tire wear, less stable braking, worsened wet weather compliance, and have to scratch their heads about the inevitable lower shock bushing wear that everyone can see with their own eyes. Creating a better SM 'off-the-shelf' damper was my goal a couple years ago when I was talking with SCCA, NASA, Mazdaspeed, and Bilstein. The steps to create a new damper require engineering resources from Bilstein that might not be deemed worth allocating. AFAIK, that's where things were left. Maybe it's time to really push for that to happen so a properly-tuned, out-of-the-box shock can be purchased for $125 each. I already published my current valving specs above, and without having to modify the piston (my earlier SM-X valving) or create that 'trick' compression curve, you would still have an improved damper over what's there now - with all the observed benefits.

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class. And also, revalving would cost more to every racer, and YOU are the one that would profit, and thus the SM racer loses in many ways. Also we have no issue with lower shock bushings. And finally, you talking at SCCA/NASA/Mazda/Bilstein like you are talking at us now is a far different scenario than a collaborative effort.

 

Again, keep in mind: by REDUCING high-speed rebound, you clearly have a more user-friendly, easier-to-drive, less harsh SM. That video I posted above comments on the cars being less abusive and more fun to drive. Do these considerations that impact the racer not matter to SMAC & SCCA? Simply arguing 'the shock is the shock, it should be used as-is' ASSUMES it was designed appropriately for the class. Evidence, both analytical and anecedotal, indicates that's not the case. NASCAR oval track philosophy =/= Spec Miata road racing. A softer (rebounding) SM damper is better for the class in many ways, driver preference aside. How a revised or clarified shock spec looks can be hashed out, but I feel it's important to look at intent of the original damper design when deciding if the 'as-received' Bilstein is fundamentally correct for this application.

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class.  The first answer is that those considerations do not make a compelling case to force racers to spend more money. You're trying to sell a solution that doesn't have a problem. And the next answer is yes, as-received is fundamentally correct for this application because that's what the rules require, in the best interests of the class. Your shocks are ILLEGAL to the current rules, and if that isn't enough for you, they are quite clearly ILLEGAL to the upcoming rules.

 

 

For the average driver this might account for a second (or less, or more) a lap. For the top-level driver, perhaps less since they're more talented to begin with the gain might be less since they can work around behaviors that a less talented driver would be fighting. However, I have had feedback from a number of racers who seem very competent (based on their results, including a few Nat'l Champs who've used my damper tuning) that the gains are there once you learn what the improved suspension is capable of.

 

Is acknowledging and taking into account the FACT that softer rebound alone in a Spec Miata damper creates a host of benefits a bad thing for the Spec Miata series and SM racers?!

 

This is irrelevant. We are all on the same shock. Spec class. Unnecessary "benefits" that come with a price tag we don't want.

 

 

 

I've highlighted my comments in red above. 

[Jim Drago]

Hey Jim, these look familiar? Standard Spec Miata front in red, your super-stiff Spec Miata dampers in green, and the STL revalve we did (that you said ate your tires) in purple.
 

 
You gave me some REALLY stiff SM dampers to use as a basis for your STL car. I'd certainly make them softer now, but that was 2012 and I've learned a few things since...
 
I don't recall you communicating any feedback on your STL car. I'd have been happy to work with you and even revise the damping at a discount or free given your support for me in the SM community. When I built the STL set, I softened to a range I felt would be workable but it was still very stiff.
 
You were using 225 Hoosiers, aero, and wanted to maintain some bump stop engagement hence the rebound-heavy / jacking down bias. With what I know now, on an STL/HPDE track Miata I'd use less low/mid/high-speed rebound, and less low-speed bump as well. I've realized that while many racers seem to favor the 'feel' of overly-stiff setups, especially having gotten used to the over-stiff SM Bilsteins, that kind of tuning accelerates tire wear. Your experience back then certainly isn't indicative of my subsequent experience and results the past ~5 years. I can't improve what I don't hear about.

Yes they do look familiar... I especially like the green line where you labelled "super-stiff Spec Miata dampers" intentionally and incorrectly implying that  I was running revalved shocks in SM, which I wasn't, but you knew that.   As I posted in the disclaimer in the my first post on this subject, others sent me shocks to test that I think I labelled as "junk" and "undriveable", you decided to send me a set even stiffer, thus even worse and more undriveable which not quite sure I understand the logic there...  What I sent ( green line)were the SD shocks that I referred to in my first post on this subject, I had no use for them and were given to me, Seemed like a logical set to revalve as they were good for nothing else to me.  If memory serves me correctly, you were also curious and wanted to dyno them.   
 
I will give you that I did not give you a chance to fix or rework them, that was on me.  And you are correct you can't fix or improve with no feedback etc. I had no problem with customer service.  Truthfully, I felt as bad as The SD shocks were, then yours being even worse.. I figured you guys were selling Snake oil or simply what I wanted was not obtainable within the confines of a non adjustable street car shock so I decided to get away from these street shocks and buy a real racing and adjustable shock set up for that car. So I didn't bother sending back or complaining as I planned on moving on. I would have never even brought this up other than the false claims and pretentious video demeaning our class etc.  What I did do before buying "real shocks"  was to remove your shocks and put a bone stock set of Billstein SM shocks and springs on the car, 100% SM set up. The car was 10x better out of the box. So much better that I never switched over to the "real package" . I sold the car at the end of 14 with the new shock package in the trunk.  I went on to run the stock set up for all of 14 season and literally won EVERY race that I finished and won another National Points Championship in that configuration. Not too bad   All can be verified as well as 2013 STL runoffs race you can watch my car burn the tires off in three laps. 
 
BTW, If we need your help, the SMAC has your number
 If you want to prove your expertise.. We don't race dynos and videos  The 5k challenge is still out there.  Or you can put someone out there in SM on a set of your shocks with big Fat Cat sponsorships  decals and see if they can beat us. I think we are ready for the challenge with out of the box shocks. 
 
I have no hard feelings, You really have a very poor understanding of what this class wants or needs. I can't stand by watching anyone speaking down to this class and making false claims about things we don't want or need. . The attitude, the condescension and false claims of 1 second are so off base that  you lost all credibility with the few that you had any credibility with in the first place. 
Jim

[Jim Drago]

I've highlighted my comments in red above. 

So you are saying we are all on the same shock and it is irrelevant?  

 

All todd's comments were spot on IMO

[Martinracing98]

So you are saying we are all on the same shock and it is irrelevant?  
 
All todd's comments were spot on IMO

I agree. I did not understand the point of identifying the re-valved shocks are better. I come from SRF an heading to SM. I have told many people that neither are great race cars. There are many cars better. But, they are GREAT classes. If the stock shocks are consistent, and from testimony I think they are (within reason) then leave them alone and make sure the rules leave no wiggle room to do otherwise.

[Dave D.]

So 6 pages in and where are we? If the drivers at the pointy end are confident that there is no time to gain with the refreshed over out of the box shocks, then what is the problem? If there are going to be "fools" to spend their money on them and show no gains, how will it hurts you as a racer? He will not be beating you! It is not required, many but feel the need to buy a pro built car for $50k and go no faster than someone in a home built car.When transmission were the hot topic with hardened syncro springs, gear shaft spacers and voodoo magic inside and cost more than a low mileage take out,some felt compelled that in order to get to the front they really needed them too! How about the end-all-be-all million dollar front hubs that we HAD to have? I say let's move on, leave the shock rule alone. If the current stock dyno specs are working and the real fear is someone showing up with an opened and radically revalved shock, both the curves and the numbers will be shown to be off compared to the current published specs. Right?

     Todd, I get it, spec class, everyone has to deal with it........Then why do we still have cylinder heads with much more machine work than as they came from Mazda? ( personally thought we should have gone back to stock heads)If we all had the crappy ports and chambers, we ALL have to deal with that. Or pick through a pile of heads for a good one right?(like some will do with out of the box shocks.....).   

[Sean - MiataCage]

So 6 pages in and where are we? If the drivers at the pointy end are confident that there is no time to gain with the refreshed over out of the box shocks, then what is the problem? I say let's move on, leave the shock rule alone.

 

It is currently illegal...... That is the problem.   As Todd has stated, please point out in the rule book where you are allowed to go into the shock and modify it.  Please point out in the GCR where the shock spec is listed.

 

The intent here is to leave the shock rule alone and move on.   We are simply writing better language to make it perfectly clear for those that choose to not want to believe that it is currently illegal.

 

The GCR and specifically SM rule set has been and will continue to be a work in progress and as more letters come in and issues come up, we will continue to clean up the rule book and make it as clear as we possibly can.   The fact that this is the current silly season topic tells me that we (the Class) have succeeded in tightening up other loop holes that have been exploited in the past.

 

This website/forum while beneficial in a lot of ways is not the GCR and does not supersede the GCR no matter which internet expert posts on it and gives their opinion.   

 

 

Sean

[av8tor]

Hey Jim, these look familiar? Standard Spec Miata front in red, your super-stiff Spec Miata dampers in green, and the STL revalve we did (that you said ate your tires) in purple.

 

 

You gave me some REALLY stiff SM dampers to use as a basis for your STL car. I'd certainly make them softer now, but that was 2012 and I've learned a few things since...

 

I don't recall you communicating any feedback on your STL car. I'd have been happy to work with you and even revise the damping at a discount or free given your support for me in the SM community. When I built the STL set, I softened to a range I felt would be workable but it was still very stiff.

 

You were using 225 Hoosiers, aero, and wanted to maintain some bump stop engagement hence the rebound-heavy / jacking down bias. With what I know now, on an STL/HPDE track Miata I'd use less low/mid/high-speed rebound, and less low-speed bump as well. I've realized that while many racers seem to favor the 'feel' of overly-stiff setups, especially having gotten used to the over-stiff SM Bilsteins, that kind of tuning accelerates tire wear. Your experience back then certainly isn't indicative of my subsequent experience and results the past ~5 years. I can't improve what I don't hear about.

 

===

 

Back to today -

 

Shocks are vitally important for a road race car, especially since you have higher average speeds. A car at 70-100 mph is getting in much higher velocities than one at 30-50 mph. That's not even considering berms / rumble strips which autocrossers don't have to contend with.

 

VIDEO - A dyno graph comparison of as-received SM Bilstein valving to factory 99-05 Showa dampers, FCM SM-MAX, and FCM 'unrestricted' HPDE/TT track valving:

 

 

Even the stock Showa has more compression than the SM Bilstein! When it comes to road race / HPDE / TT Miatas, I and other tuners have used more compression and far less rebound very effectively compared to the as-received SM dampers. The SM Bilsteins are no yardstick to measure 'goodness of fit' against.

 

In terms of suitability, I argue that the SM Bilsteins are designed for softer springs and circle track, not stiff springs and road racing. The design intent for the current SM Bilstein was to keep the car on the bump stops ALL the time. It doesn't take a genius to see or feel this. When you consider limitations for a Showroom Stock Miata, that NASCAR philosophy will work for a softly-sprung car (~170F / 110R lb/in springs) because you can't legally throw on 3x higher spring rates within rule limitations.

 

But the same idea of 'jacking into the bump stops' IS NOT appropriate or anywhere near optimal for a Spec Miata that IS ALREADY running 3x higher spring rates (700F / 325R lb/in)!  For an SM, the stiffer springs and sways work together to control the chassis, so the SM dampers don't need to be 'jack' the car into the bump stops. That jacking behavior effectively KILLS your suspension travel and mandates that you're going to be using the tire sidewall as your main spring once you've lost all shock travel bouncing around on the bump stops. There's NO suspension travel through rough / broken sections of track, no compliance when dealing with berms / seams, and the driver is absolutely suffering with an uncomfortable and less predictable Spec Miata. How is this something we 'must keep as-is', especially when there's an existing shock rules that lets an intelligent shock tuner correct these deficiencies?

 

I've worked with several SM racers who went to ITA and kept the same suspension setup (springs / sways / bump stops / ride heights / alignment) and only had me change the damping to our more 'unrestricted', track-maximized valving. They ALL picked up time, noted the car was easier to drive, etc. A better damping profile will show up SOTP and in lap times. Even a middling driving will notice and be able to take advantage of this provided you give at least a little room for the suspension to work (not lower it right onto the bump stops).

 

I'm in favor of tightening the max forces and extending the velocities, but not if that means the racer has to suffer with a damper that's clearly and demonstrably too stiff to begin with. The 1990-1997 Bilstein (used in all Spec Miatas) factory valving, to the extent that it was based on a softer-sprung Showroom Stock suspension, isn't what a stiffer-sprung SM actually needs.

 

By being forced to run an unmodified damper, the SM racer loses in many ways. They have a harsher-than-necessary suspension, increased tire wear, less stable braking, worsened wet weather compliance, and have to scratch their heads about the inevitable lower shock bushing wear that everyone can see with their own eyes. Creating a better SM 'off-the-shelf' damper was my goal a couple years ago when I was talking with SCCA, NASA, Mazdaspeed, and Bilstein. The steps to create a new damper require engineering resources from Bilstein that might not be deemed worth allocating. AFAIK, that's where things were left. Maybe it's time to really push for that to happen so a properly-tuned, out-of-the-box shock can be purchased for $125 each. I already published my current valving specs above, and without having to modify the piston (my earlier SM-X valving) or create that 'trick' compression curve, you would still have an improved damper over what's there now - with all the observed benefits.

 

Again, keep in mind: by REDUCING high-speed rebound, you clearly have a more user-friendly, easier-to-drive, less harsh SM. That video I posted above comments on the cars being less abusive and more fun to drive. Do these considerations that impact the racer not matter to SMAC & SCCA? Simply arguing 'the shock is the shock, it should be used as-is' ASSUMES it was designed appropriately for the class. Evidence, both analytical and anecedotal, indicates that's not the case. NASCAR oval track philosophy =/= Spec Miata road racing. A softer (rebounding) SM damper is better for the class in many ways, driver preference aside. How a revised or clarified shock spec looks can be hashed out, but I feel it's important to look at intent of the original damper design when deciding if the 'as-received' Bilstein is fundamentally correct for this application.

 

For the average driver this might account for a second (or less, or more) a lap. For the top-level driver, perhaps less since they're more talented to begin with the gain might be less since they can work around behaviors that a less talented driver would be fighting. However, I have had feedback from a number of racers who seem very competent (based on their results, including a few Nat'l Champs who've used my damper tuning) that the gains are there once you learn what the improved suspension is capable of.

 

Is acknowledging and taking into account the FACT that softer rebound alone in a Spec Miata damper creates a host of benefits a bad thing for the Spec Miata series and SM racers?!

I love this guy.  I turned my old SM into an ITS car and since I had the SM Bilsteins I emailed him to ask what he could do.  He sent me back a list of what I should do with long winded descriptions of how great it would be, bottom line, It was the same price as buying custom valved double adjustable PENSKEs.  I emailed him and said, thanks, but I told you from the get go, I wasn't trying to cheat in SM I was just trying to save some money since I had these yellow fishing weights sitting in my garage, at that price I am going to buy some real dampers.  He then FLAMED me, telling me that I had no idea what I was doing, I was an idiot, his revalves would be way better than anything else I could get.... It was crazy, not exactly what one would expect from a business man in the very tight knit world of auto sports.

[38bfast]

It is very obvious on the shock dyno when a set of shocks have been modified, Shape of curve. Tech has over the last year obtained a very large sample size of stock out of the box shocks they have dynoed. It is plain as day when you compare curves. The new rule let’s tech take advantage of this data.

[gerglmuff2]

That is hitting the nail on the head right there.  You're making a great argument for spec dampers and no modification allowed.  Otherwise it's one more think to buy, test, evaluate, potentially revise and do over again.  If tuned dampers are permitted there will be somebody out there or several somebody's that are using track specific or even weather specific tunes.  Once that starts the perception alone that you have to do that to compete (even if it's a false premise) potentially creates more time and investment for a lot of competitors.  The more we are all the same the better.  Only potential downside to a tighter rule and more enforcement is the lost investment by any who have purchased dampers that won't pass future inspections, but that is the risk one takes when going into the grey area. 

 

As Steve pointed out, the spring/shock/swaybar combination we have has a lot of room for improvement but change for change sake doesn't make the racing better, simpler or cheaper and even my older bones don't mind getting thrashed around in the car. 

 

presumably if you wrote the spec right, and you put an upper AND lower bound on the shock forces, you could make all the shocks the same. and you have a simple, no-disassembly required test: shock dyno. if it passes your spec, its good, if it doesnt, its bad. this would also prevent binning of the shocks like you will get if you say "no modification" in the rule book. it also leaves open repair and rebuild situations, for budget minded folks, who need to get one or two dampers rebuilt or whatever, as long as the shock meets the dyno curve specified, its legal. 

i don't really see a reason why that wouldn't be the simplest way. 

I'll stop harping on it now, i think i made my point. 

[davew]

Dam it Todd. I was not going to read that extended tyraid. But you put in those bright read comments and I got drawn into it. dam it Todd, you wasted another 10 minutes of my time. Dammit, dam it dam it.       

 

 

[Brandon]

It is very obvious on the shock dyno when a set of shocks have been modified, Shape of curve. Tech has over the last year obtained a very large sample size of stock out of the box shocks they have dynoed. It is plain as day when you compare curves. The new rule let’s tech take advantage of this data.

 

Will this graph be published for competitor use? That's the crux of this entire debate is the purported use of something hidden from competitors to declare parts non-compliant.

 

Write whatever rule you want but if my dampers meet the posted tech bulletin numbers yet are bounced from the tech shed because there's another analysis done (viewing the graph), there's no recourse to the competitor prior to having said inspection.

 

I'm willing to entertain someone's reasoned and GCR-supported justification for using unpublished data to claim parts as non-compliant however no one has done so up to this point.

[Jim Drago]

Will this graph be published for competitor use? That's the crux of this entire debate is the purported use of something hidden from competitors to declare parts non-compliant.

 

Write whatever rule you want but if my dampers meet the posted tech bulletin numbers yet are bounced from the tech shed because there's another analysis done (viewing the graph), there's no recourse to the competitor prior to having said inspection.

 

I'm willing to entertain someone's reasoned and GCR-supported justification for using unpublished data to claim parts as non-compliant however no one has done so up to this point.

This was my concern as well. If they fail the graph then opened by Billstein and found to be modified then I would be fine with a DQ. 

 

While made clearly not legal by new rule clarification... IMO a rebuilt shock, not a revalved shock would still pass any tech put on it as long as the internals were not modified.   

[38bfast]

Brandon comparison to a stock part for compliance is very common procedure without publishing specs. 

[Bench Racer]

Reading this thread to me is kind of funny/entertaining, There are many cults within the Spec Miata community and many cults serving the Spec Miata community. 

 

2. #21854 (John Bauer) Shock Spec Data Review Add to 9.1.7.C.3.a.1.: 1. Shocks (including internals) must be as delivered by Bilstein/Mazda. No modifications to the compression and/or rebound forces are allowed.

 

Add to the rule, NO OPENING OF THE SHOCK ALLOWED.

 

As delivered by Bilstein/Mazda, great use some ingenious process and seal the shocks.

 

Can we now move back to the slut.

[Sean - MiataCage]

Reading this thread to me is kind of funny/entertaining, There are many cults within the Spec Miata community and many cults serving the Spec Miata community. 

 

2. #21854 (John Bauer) Shock Spec Data Review Add to 9.1.7.C.3.a.1.: 1. Shocks (including internals) must be as delivered by Bilstein/Mazda. No modifications to the compression and/or rebound forces are allowed.

 

Add to the rule, NO OPENING OF THE SHOCK ALLOWED.

 

As delivered by Bilstein/Mazda, great use some ingenious process and seal the shocks.

 

Can we now move back to the slut.

 

Define opening please.........