ba-autox
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Stock Shock Chalk Talk

To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: RE: Stock Shock Chalk Talk
From: "Ian Green" <iagreen@ucdavis.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
I really don't agree with the shock issues going around in stock lately. 
But I've never ran stock and don't plan on it so I guess its not really my 
buisness. But if you start limiting shocks to major companies aren't you 
just helping to shut down the newer, smaller companies? Especially if you 
start trying to spread those rules beyond stock. We aren't the only form 
of motorsports but I'm sure that we do make up a signifigant portion of 
the market that these companies build for. If you limited specialty shocks 
to prepared/modified you'd probably hurt alot of the upcoming technology 
and probably lose alot of potential new autocrossers. Running in STS 
(supposedly the next step from stock) we have alot of discussions about 
newcomers already exceeding the rules with their daily drivers. Not too 
many people own prep/mod cars but theres a pretty good number who own 
street driven cars in various classes with custom built shocks.

Ian
STS 99
shocks $ = 1/2 current blue book $

> Hi Anthony
> 
> Your version is definitely much easier to read and understand.  The price
> limit thing is questionable though.  I hope that your kind of thinking 
could
> be applied to the Street Prepared classes too.  How can I compete with 
cars
> that have $1500 a corner shocks and struts and have 350rwhp as well as 
have
> 315 or 335 tires sticking out of the wheel wells.  Those type of race 
parts
> should be left in the Prepared and Modified classes really.  People might
> complain that it really only makes a small difference in track time.  Add
> all those small changes up and the rich guys have much faster cars.  My 
two
> cents.
> 
> Kirk
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Anthony Tabacco
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:30 AM
> To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> 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
> 

Ian Green
2003 Team Coleader
UC Davis Formula SAE
http://mae.ucdavis.edu/~fsae
97 Honda Civic CX
http://www.geocities.com/stscxr

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>