In a message dated 1/14/02 6:43:07 PM Central Standard Time,
awhollis@swbell.net writes:
> like Byron's point here. We are mostly affecting national competitors and
> those that immediately aspire to such with the actual cost savings The
> OEM-only solution, though, adversely affects the novice and regional
> competitor.
not necessarily, let the regions do as they please with regard to shocks, but
require divisional and national competitors have to comply with National
rules.
> To deal with the "unknown shock" issue, I actually prefer the opposite
> approach which is to have an inclusion list. Mark Andy started such a list
> and I believe with some diligence it can be fleshed out to include the
> shocks that are desired (OEM, OEM equivalent and normal street performance
> shocks). Allowing revalving, oil change, and pressure change removes much
> of the cheating/policing issue but allows extra costs to be incurred.
> Still, its cheaper than the truly extra groovy shocks, which are twice the
> price. Moreover, it lessens the perforance difference between the "haves"
> and the "have nots". And most importantly, it addresses the *perception*
> that you have to spend very large dollars to run at the top.
>
Well if you allow those things, then why change it at all? You won't change
the perception because allowing those changes is going to weigh heavily in
the amount of money spent to, of all things, keep up with the Jones'. I
can't possibly see the logic of this proposed idea because this hardly
narrows the gap between the haves and have-nots. IMO, your proposal widens
that gap. I would like to point out a couple of things here. (this becomes
long, but the following are IMO very valid points and worth reading)
A remote reservoir in and of itself is no advantage except when certain
packaging considerations come into play; removing the gas storage area of a
monotube into a reservoir allows you more flexibilty in achieving a longer
stroke within a certain end-to-end length constraint. That's all, and it's
rarely if ever an issue in Stock. Somebody could try and argue that a
reservoir makes it easier to configure the bump adjuster, but there are
several non-reservoir shocks that easily get around this so in the end
analysis, it's not really a factor except that the extra parts add cost; i.e.
extra cost, no advantage.
Second, it's not twice the price for all situations. You are strictly
thinking in terms of comparing double tube and monotube designs. If the OE
piece is already a monotube, few if any shock companys are going to offer a
double tube design as a replacement. Once you get into a monotube with your
proposed variations you will be in just as deep financially as the very
shocks you want excluded. FWIW, most shock companies no longer play the oil
weight game. Most have only one oil, maybe two tops, to cover every single
application. To bring in oil weight as a variable is going to increase the
amount of testing ($$$ cost) and further widen the gap; i.e. extra cost, no
advantage.
Finally, one of the big cost factors in shocks is the difference between
aluminum and steel bodies. Aluminum body shocks cost at least 30% more than
steel, but the weight difference is usually less than 1 lb per shock.
Compare this savings to the typical total and/or unsprung weight of a stock
car and you quickly realize how immaterial the difference is for using
aluminum bodies on a stock car. Furthermore, the upside down configuration
that now seems to getting attention is in the same boat. Essentially one
half of the shock is attached to the chassis and the other half is part of
the unsprung weight. In the case of an upside down aluminum design, the
steel shaft half of the shock weighs considerably more than aluminum body, so
by placing it in an upside down configuration you put the heavier end as part
of the unsprung weight; i.e. there is no real advantage to doing this on a
Stock car, just the opposite if you want to split hairs. We already noted
that the weight diff between steel and aluminum bodies is less than 1 lb, so
less than 4 lbs total for the typical 4 shock system, the net effect on
lowering either total or unsprung weight is meaningless in a stock car. This
stuff only really comes to play in an extremely lightweight formula type car.
The bottom line is using aluminum bodies and upside down configurations are
for the most part pointless exercises in anality with regard to a Stock class
car. There's no real benefit for all the extra money spent and these are all
perfect examples of why cost is no effective measuring tool; i.e. extra cost,
no advantage.
The hysteria behind all this just amazes me to no end. I apologize for
sounding like I'm riding the high horse at times, it's just a difference in
understanding the real meaning of these things. In the case of the Koni 28's
on my Z06, I went with the steel bodies for the cost savings, but built them
in the upside down configuration because it was unique, convenient to do and
no extra cost, plus it put the adjusters at the bottom which ultimately
proved to be no advantage over having them at the top; the access for
adjustment proved to be the same either way; i.e. no extra cost, but no
advantage either. It does a good job of psyching out the uniformed though.
Mark Sipe
/// 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
|