>From Byron Short on the Evo list.
Matt Murray
---------Original Message-----------
As the shock debate is settling down, it seems that I'm
reading more and more people who treat the OEM concept as
idealistic, simplistic, and above all, unenforceable. Paul
Brown, one of the guys who actually gets to vote on this
(rather than just whine like the rest of us) told us that he
feels that the OEM concept is flawed to the point of being
the worst of the alternatives, because it is completely
unenforceable. But I take issue with his assertions.
Paul says that OEM shocks have already been tried in
showroom stock, and they failed there because the protest
shed couldn't enforce the rule. Okay, I remember the days
that they had to go to 5th at the Runoffs to find a legal
car to stand on the podium. But those cars that were
illegal, weren't found illegal for shocks--they were illegal
for engine modifications. Showroom stock racers were
finding lots of ways to built illegal engines that they were
convinced were undetectable. The protest shed found them to
be quite detectable, and the cars were ejected. As far as I
can remember, and someone please set me straight if I'm
missing something, but I don't remember a single
disqualification at the runoffs in Showroom Stock for
tweaked shocks.
Do we believe that this is because shock tweaking is
undetectable? I don't. A shock is a mechanical thing, way
less complicated than, say, an engine. It has orifices,
valves, borings, springs, rods. Mechanical stuff. If we
cut one open we can see and measure these things. Anyone
who thinks that if they make the external case of the shock
look stock they are home free is mistaken. If you send your
shocks to Koni for revalving, how do they know to make them
stiffer? They look at the current parts inside the shock,
and alter them. If they were somehow unmeasureable this
would be impossible. C'mon folks, it's mechanical stuff.
It's measurable.
Okay, so what is there REALLY to learn from Showroom Stock
for us in Solo Stock? Let's look at where they had all of
their enforceability problems...motor work. I joined the
SEB in 1994, just as the sunset period for engine balancing,
blue-printing, and over-boring was expiring. This was going
to take our engine rules to the point that Showroom Stock
was, completely OEM. No more overbores, balancing, or other
blueprinting, which had up to that time been permitted. It
had become acceptable practice to buy a new car, pull the
motor apart, over-bore, balance, and blueprint it. A
competitor might spend thousands, all to get what was
typically just a few small percentage points of hp gain.
Does this sound familiar?
The naysayers at that time put in one last ditch effort to
try to block the rule, to eliminate the OEM engine specs,
and continue to allow balancing, blue-printing, and
overboring. They said it would be unenforceable, that only
the cheaters would have tweaked engines, and nobody else
would be able to detect it. And they pointed to Showroom
Stock to prove their point. Which was a pretty good
argument, given Showroom Stock's then recent history.
But the SEB stuck to their guns, the sunshine period
expired, and OEM engine specs prevailed. They are still in
effect. So what do you think of the current engine
situation? Do we have widespread cheating? Does anyone
think that if someone has tweaked an engine that it would be
undetectable? And in the final analysis, did this rule
change help the sport or hurt the sport? Did it cost us
money or save us money? Did it help us grow or limit our
growth?
Think about the arguments that are being presented. Do you
really think shock internals can't be measured? Do you
think our current system, which has kept engine cheating
well under control in stock, will be incapable of doing the
same thing with shock absorbers. I've been on many protest
committees at nationals that dealt with engine teardowns,
the last just last year. Our competitor body is willing to
put up the bond money to take apart an engine to find out
the truth. And by and large, the truth is, we don't have
rampant engine cheating going on. A protesting individual
can provide a new shock, or the money for one, way cheaper
than he can dive into an engine, I'll guarantee that.
It's a bold step, to change from the status quo. It was a
bolder step in 1994 to go forward with even more sweeping
changes in our engine preparation. But the sport is better
for it. Can any of us imagine returning to the old engine
rules now? Would anyone like to stand up in favor of the
old engine rules?
I believe that if we adopt OEM rules for shocks that we'll
feel the same way eight years hence.
--Byron
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|