Rather than cost, I'd lobby for a simple inclusion/exclusion list, then
you can say specifically which shocks you/we want and don't want. Cost
will never work, especially in the used parts realm.
What we may start to see then is a very expensive, monotube
penske with one external adjustment set right at the "max price" that
people deem "affordable". We can't exclude Penske just because they're
penske, and we need to be ready for someone to introduce a ultra
performance shock that is priced and designed to fit just within our
new parameters with regards to price and adjustability. So then
everyone needs to go out and spend $1,000, or whatever the max price
is, even if they have a brand new car with brand new OEM shocks, to be
competitive. Same problem, but we've roped in the price issue, a
little.
Better? yeah, but if you're gonna do that why not mandate OEM shocks
and only allow non OEM only if they aren't available anymore, then have
an inclusion list?
Many people (especially national competitors) are buying new cars every
few years just to stay competitive. As much as they are the only ones
buying new cars, they are also the only ones buying $5,000 shocks. An
OEM shock rule would control costs much better for those people, but
they're spending oodles of money already. If you're trying to make the
regional competitor who wants their 10 year old car to be competitive
without buying $5,000 shocks, I don't think this is the solution. In
most cases it's the car that's not competitive because everyone else
has spent $30k+ and upgraded to the new hot ticket. There are
exceptions, but eventually, and unfortunately, a new car will be put
into those classes as well...
A more stable classing system (like change it every 5 years or make all
new cars outclassed until someone actually spends a couple years
setting it up) might even make more sense from a pure cost savings
standpoint. But who said racing, errr, drving cars in a test of skill
around cones, is cheap?
It's like a lot of things. x number of hours will get you to maybe
80-90%, but you have to spend 3 or 4 times that to get the last 10%.
Shocks are part of that equation, but it's also all the littler things
that separate the fastest CARS (not drivers) from the fast-ish ones,
especially when the car isn't new. You'd think my MR2 had a solid gold
chassis if I told you what was spent on it vs. what it's book value
is(and it's got single adjustable shocks).
randy
--- Anthony Tabacco <atabacco@california.com> wrote:
> The SEB is all over the map on trying to write a revised rule for
> stock
> shocks. You probably read the distilled draft of the rule in
> Fast-track last
> issue. While I appreciate the effort, after mighty debate, it has
> brought
> forth a rule that says that shocks for stock class cars cannot have
> remote
> reservoirs. This isn't even close to good enough. The debate for all
> practical purposes is dominated and limited to those very few
> stakeholders
> with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which means
> more money
> than everyone else would even consider spending, or that they make
> their
> living at servicing them. It is not healthy for the sport, but I
> think they
> were surprised to hear from an "ordinary" member. The response was
> interesting. Someone on the SEB asked me (I think sincerely) for
> specific
> language. I am proceeding on the premise that a Koni 2800 or a Penske
> on a
> Stock car is as stupid as R Compounds and that a workable shock rule
> can be
> centered around restrictions on cost. If you don't agree with that,
> you need
> to write your own letter because thats where I'm coming from, and
> here is
> what I have:
>
> "It is the intent of this rule that Stock Class serve as the entry
> class to
> the sport and that cost containment is of primary importance to that
> goal.
> Shock absorbers costs are best controlled by limiting shocks to units
> economical enough that outright replacement of a unit is the
> mandatory
> alternative in lieu of rebuilding.
>
> 1) Shocks shall be limited to one external adjustment, except when
> OEM.
> 2) Shocks are limited to "off the shelf" units available for general
> distribution street use to the public typically including, but not
> limited
> to: OEM, Koni single adjustable, Bilstein, Tokiko, KYB, or available
> "house
> brands", or other such units that meet the criteria and intent of the
> rule.
> 3) The use of Koni 2800, Olin, Penske, Fox, DMS, or other such units
> specifically manufactured for the specialty racing market are
> specifically
> disallowed.
> 4) Shocks shall be installed "as manufactured" and shall not be
> purchased
> from a third party in a modified condition or opened up for any
> reason by an
> entrant or a third party. Revalving, machining, or modifying a shock
> absorber for any reason is specifically disallowed. Except as
> supplied as
> OEM, the use of remote reservoirs, alloy bodies, adjustable perches,
> or
> welded off coil-overs is prohibited.
> 5) Cost of each unit is limited to $250 per unit or 125% of OEM,
> whichever
> is greater."
>
> So, how close did I came? This gets added to the usual other stuff
> there.
> Also, if anyone can tell me if the cost item #5 does not work for
> them (like
> what does a 996 shock cost anyway?) or you can add to the list of
> allowed/dis-allowed, I would appreciate it. The other smoke and
> mirror thing
> you hear a lot of is enforceability (as though anyone who can get
> past a
> dipstick couldn't find tons of legal horsepower and tons more of
> undetectable horsepower) so they are worried that the guy in the next
> pit is
> going to cheat. its just a screen to not change a situation that has
> evolved
> to the ridiculous.
>
> Be good,
> Tony
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
|