s2k2fast4me

Just a reminder to the autoxers out there that you might want to your letters into the SEB regarding a couple of issues....

1)The "tweaking" to be done to SS/AS/BS. Make sure you get a letter in expressing your opinion on where the S2K (and other cars) should be placed. Try and use actual event results to back up any points you have to make. Participation numbers also help.

2)Stock class shock rules. There is a new proposal in the latest Fastrack. In very basic terms, it limits certain physical dimensions, restricts them to a maximum of 2 adjustment ranges, and eliminates aftermarket shocks with remote reservoirs. If the current proposal were approved, it would be effective for the 2003 season, with the remote reservoirs being banned starting in 2004.

It wouldn't be too appropriate to list my opinions on the matter as I'm on the Stock Advisory Committee, but I would like to at least encourage you to write your letters. You can address them to hduncan@scca.org and Howard will forward them on to the appropriate people.

-Andy

CoralDoc

Thanks for the heads up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by s2k2fast4me
[B]2)Stock class shock rules.

Jason Saini

Cars that have remote canisters from the factory are specifically noted as legal, although if you want to replace the OEM shock, you can only use a replacement without a remote canister (ala any Koni shock, Mugen shock, etc)

Quote:

It sounds like the intent of this rule is to help those of us that don't want to invest thousands of dollars on high-end shocks. True?

That is certainly the intent of the rule, but I don't think that it will play out in practice. The problem is, everyone is 'up in arms' about expensive shocks - everyone that doesn't have them. It's a perception thing... people think that if you don't have these custom shocks, you have no chance of winning. That's just not the case - I've been beaten twice this season by cars with stock shocks and a superior driver.

The second, and bigger problem with the rule proposal - is that people associate remote canisters with cost. This is simply false. The Koni 28-series shocks that are on Joe Goeke and Jason Keeney's car are in the same 'class' of shock as Penske, Moton and JRZ - but they don't have remote canisters. That means they are every bit as expensive as the others, yet would be totally legal under the new rule. Everyone that has any expensive shock with a remote canister would be forced to buy a *new* set of expensive shocks to comply with the rule, and those who cannot afford expensive shocks will still be 'left in the dark'.

IMO, the only way to truly have shock spending stabilize is to have spec shocks. Any other rule, and you will always have someone out-spending others. Even if you used stock shocks as the rule, someone would spend the money to either dyno 50 shocks to find the best 4, or cut the shocks open and revalve them. At least now, the same technology is available to everyone - it may be expensive, but at least there is a level playing field among those who find a way (sharing costs, getting a codriver, etc.) to get the shocks on their car.

s2k2fast4me

What Jason said. Screening out remote reservoirs does nothing except address the perception that they cost more and perform better. Both of those perceptions are incorrect.

For example, if I wanted to put the super duper shocks on my car the Koni 28's would run 4500 or so. A roughly equivalent in performance Penske with remote reservoirs set would run 3500 or so. That's both sets with double adjustables. With the current proposal, if I wanted to buy a set of legal shocks (starting in 2004) I'd have to spend ~$1000 more.

Frankly, no one has successfully written a shock rule that would save costs and work. No one has really complained about the current rule until the *perception* grew that people were buying $8000 sets of shocks and that they were now a requirement to win. As is typical, the prices get inflated with each telling of the story. And, if those mega dollar shocks made the car .1sec faster you *have* to have them to compete, a view which often overlooks the fact that many other setup variables (driver, tires, alignment, etc.) are more important in producing quantifiable performance gains.

So, basically the current proposed rule does absolutely nothing to keep costs down (and in fact may drive costs up by eliminating some shock manufacturers from the market), doesn't do anything on restricting performance, but does address some perceptions. Is that a good enough reasoning to make the rule change?

OK, so I lied and did give my opinion on this item. Sue me.;-)

The cost argument really kills me, though. I've already spent on tires this year about enough to get a set of Penske's. Those tires will be all gone by the end of the year, with neglible resale value. At least with shocks I can recoup some of the cost and use them year after year.

-Andy

CoralDoc

Thanks for the clarification of the ruling and the education on shock cost/performance issues.

It's always been baffling to me as to why "stock" class cars can use improved aftermarket parts at all. I guess I tend to be a purist . A spec part certainly sounds like a good idea. It allows other than OEM parts, but minimizes the cost escalation associated with it.

RandyP

I wrote my letter on reclassing, but I choose not to respond to the SCCA on the shock issue. I understand the technical issues and how it can cost even more money to not use remote reservoirs. The perception among those without the trick shocks is that the remote reservoir shocks are getting away with something, and it may be as little as a pound of unsprung weight. Just because there are non-reservoir shocks that are more expensive then Penskes doesn't mean that in 2 years there won't be a remote reservoir shock that costs more and has some advantage over the space-constrained alternative.

Jason Saini

You're absolutely right... a true spec part would do those things. But to truly have a spec part, it would need to be sold and policed by the SCCA or a company contracted by the SCCA. Can you imagine having to pluck your set of shocks from a 'pool' of shocks all with labels on them to avoid tampering? How about having to do that for every race? IMO, that's the only way to assure parity - but then, of course someone would always complain that the other competitor got the 'better' spec shock... y'know, like when you are at the go-kart track and there is always one kart that's faster than all the others and you're pissed that your buddy got it and you didn't.

And to RandyP's comments, technically speaking it's true - there is a space advantage to reserviors, but Koni has done just fine making non-reservior shocks for the entire time they have been in business. Even their most expensive shocks are non-reservior. I just don't see Koni falling too far behind any of the other shock manufacturers anytime soon.

And let's not forget the other factor - tuning ability. There might be someone out there that is better off with the stock shocks or single-adjustable Koni Yellows, because they don't have the tuning experience or expertise. Those people will be faster on those shocks than on double-adjustables! Not to mention the guy who buys the latest whiz-bang shocks and has no idea how to tune them. Any go-fast part (or car for that matter) is only as good as the driver makes them.

SR71BB

One "fair" way to keep shock prices reasonable is to make a claiming rule. As far as the "advantage" remote reservoir shocks provide, it is negligible, and spending huge dollars for double-adjustable shocks is ridiculous - note Jason's comment that he has been beaten by people on stock shocks.

So what's fair? Set a $500 limit per shock?

BTW, yet another decent result, making this my 6th win in 7 events CenDiv #3

Orthonormal

I just wrote my letter about the shock proposal. Coincidentally, somone has a set of Penske DAs to fit my car up for sale...even used, they're about twice what I was planning to spend on "fancy" shocks. Even if I decided that they were worth it, it's a risk with the shock proposal hanging there unresolved.

I've seen the claiming rule proposed and shot down a couple of times. One pretty convincing counter-argument is that a deep-pockets racer could just buy a new set of super-fancy shocks for each major event with the expectation that someone would claim them. He/she still gets to use them for the event, and doesn't care about the money (look at how many people buy fresh Hoosiers for every Tour and Pro).

Another problem is how to implement the claiming. It's a pain to install/remove shocks, and if you have the time and tools to do it on site, how does the car with the claimed shocks get home? (smartass answer: "bounce-bounce-bounce!")