As cheapskate who spent a whopping $370 on a set of
adjustable shocks, I like the rule in concept
including the price cap. However, prices can vary
widely on aftermarket parts. My suggestion would be to
limit the price to $250 MSRP (manfuacturers suggested
retail price).
That said, our hobby is on where there is no
substitute for cubic dollars. There will always be
someone willing buy whatever the most competitive car
is in your class to dump another $5000 into developing
it to win a $50 trophy. This is one of the reasons I
have few ambititions about going to nationals.
--- 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
|