I like it!
I believe 911 (pre '90) shocks are well within that amount,
not sure about later 911s.
OTOH, did you all read the Car & Driver article where they
compared top stock autorcoss cars with true street cars
of the same type, then traded parts onto the stock car to
see what made the most difference? R tires made a
big difference, shocks a small but noticeable difference,
most everything else was hardly noticeable in the times,
as I recall. Pretty notable Solo2 drivers on hand to run the cars,
too, I recall.
Jerry
Jerry Mouton "Laissez les bons temps rouler!"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Tabacco" <atabacco@california.com>
To: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: Stock Shock Chalk Talk
> 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
|