Part 2
Matt Murray
mattm@optonline.net
For instance, let's be extreme and say "no aftermarket
adjustable shocks at all". The new "must have" shock
becomes one that has all of the same features that, say,
Peter's shocks had that day at Nationals. Only not
adjustable. So how do we get those? Easy but expensive.
We have great folks like Guy Ankeny determine the new exotic
settings, and put them into a non adjustable shocks. The
trouble is, for Guy to learn this he has to experiment a
LOT, and that experimentation is what he gets paid for.
That's why his shocks right now are both a) wonderful and b)
expensive. Eliminating the adjustability of shocks while
allowing any aftermarket shock only makes them more
wonderful and more expensive. So I don't believe that
trying to legislate the construction of the shock has any
merit at all, and rather, that any further legislation will
likely add to the cost of "stock" shocks.
I see only two paths for shock rules if we are to get this
under control. 1) Claimer rule, and 2) OEM shocks. There
are some dangers with each.
First I HATE (all caps double underline) the idea of a
claimer rule on shocks. I think claimer rules are mostly
unworkable, and I would NOT (ACDU) recommend we adopt one
here. The only good thing I can say about it, though, is it
hits directly on the problem. If we adopted, say, a $1000
claimer rule for shocks, this might resolve the problem.
But one of the big dangers would be the OEM shocks that cost
more than $1000 to replace. And what about the guy who
worked hard to perfect his shocks, only to have them
"force-sold" to his competitor? Obviously we don't want the
rule to create a new means of shopping for parts. And
basically that's how a claimer rule feels to me. Either
it's mis-used in this way, or dis-used, and therefore has
very limited effect. Again, this is not the idea I think we
should follow, but I've heard it expressed, and hey, it
might bear more discussion. As much as I dislike the idea
of a claimer rule, I would support it over what we have now.
As you might deduce then, I'm really in favor or requiring
OEM shocks in stock classes. I have to tell you that when I
was on the SEB I was firmly on the side of allowances in
stock to equalize the playing field for more cars, and to
keep costs down. Done properly, allowances beyond stock
have both of these effects. I have always been, and still
largely am, not in favor of making stock more stock, just
for the sake of semantics. Mostly our allowances to stock
work, and work well.
But consider the original reason that shocks were part of
what we allow to be altered in stock--price. Originally, it
was thought that aftermarket shocks would be cheaper than
oem shocks. Heck, a nice set of Sears Roadhandlers still
are! But as we all know, the years went by, solo became
more affluent, shock technology blossomed, and then we hit a
new reason to allow shocks to be altered--tuning. By
allowing different levels of tuning to more cars, we keep
more cars competitive. And besides, if we look at
"performance" cars, such as they were, in the 1980's or so,
we find that the factory shocks pretty much sucked. So we
made the cars more enjoyable, at a price that was only
beginning to slightly outstrip oem shocks, and along the way
more cars could be competitive. That was still a neat place
to be. But that's not where we are now.
What's happened now, is that the shock rule has had the
opposite effect of what it's one-time benefits were. It's
more expensive. With Miata shocks at $3K-5K and Corvette
shocks at $4K-8K, this unintended result has gone completely
wacko. And consider availability. Lots of cars are
rendered uncompetitive (either in fact or in perception)
because nobody builds trick shocks for them...yet. (Hey,
don't fret...if enough people put together their $4K and
send it in, they'll find a way to cash your checks! ;-) So
the two things we had most to gain have swung around 180
degrees to be the two worst things about the current shock
rules.
So what would happen if we went to stock shocks? First,
let's talk about the fun factor.
Would the cars that are the top contenders in their classes
right now become un-fun? I don't believe so. Miatas,
Z06's, even Type R's and Neon ACR's all come with shocks
that are better from the factory than the trick shocks were
from say 10 years ago. And if everyone is on the same
shocks, we'll have no trouble accepting the extra
wallowy-ness in those cars that didn't have such great
shocks.
What about competitiveness? There are two issues here.
First, does this re-shuffle the class deck? I don't think
so. The cars that are the leaders in their class now,
almost without exception, come with really good shocks to
begin with. They will continue to be the best in their
class on stock shocks, in all likelihood. The second
concern regarding competitiveness is, will we see more
classes become spec classes because only a few cars have
good factory shocks? Again, not likely. And one provision
to help this is to allow EOM shocks from equipment package
of the same model to be used, as long as they are a direct
bolt-in. This means that a Miata can use the R series
Bilsteins. And a Camaro can use the double-adjustable 1LE's
shocks. There's lots of room for debate here of course.
Next, what about cost, really? Some of the newer cars do
have some rather costly shocks, but then, they are newer
cars and really shouldn't be needing shocks any time soon.
And if you spent $50K for a car, and decide you want new
shocks, you understand if the shocks cost you more than
Roadhandlers for an '86 Rabbit. In most cases, though,
factory oem shocks will cost less than what we used to spend
on off-the-shelf performance shocks like Koni yellows, or
GABs. So at the very worst, our shock pricing returns to
where it was 5 years ago or so.
/// 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
|