TT Shock $$$ ???

[BlkGt3]

The story. I have an SCCA T3 Honda S2000 that I think would be legal for TTC. This would give me another place to play. My question concerns shocks and the $$$ formula for points. I may have line on a good setup (replacing my 3 way Motons) but it would be very close to the $ limit. If the price goes up because of Inflation would I be grandfathered in on my original purchase price for points or would the new price be applied increasing the points accessed??

 

Bueller anyone

 

Peter

[phoenixR34]

It sounds to me like you're saying they already have gone up, and you're hoping a lower price from several years ago will still count, right?

 

Good question. What shocks are they so we can look them up and see what the price is, today?

 

Otherwise, buy them right now, while the price is still legal and keep a receipt with the date and price on it.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Guest

[kbrew8991]

it does bring up an interesting point - rule says MSRP, but is it the MSRP when you got them... and how do you prove that, etc

[Greg G.]

The rule is going to have to change again for 2010. It will likely cost our drivers ($$$) in the end, and the price cap did work well for us for three and a half years. But, it has finally caught up with us. We have a good idea of what we will need to do to change the shock rules, but anyone is welcome to e-mail their suggestions to be put into the file for consideration during the 2010 rule revisions. We will try and get this rule out as early as possible (if needed, before the actual 2010 rules come out).

 

If the O.P. is thinking about competition in 2010, he should wait until the rules come out before making purchase decisions. If he is considering competition in 2009, then if the retail price currently is over the limit for the shocks he has, he would not be legal at the lower point level.

[BlkGt3]

Thanks Greg,

 

This is for 2010.

 

My thoughts on the $$ to points might work better if it was related to the amount of adjustability. ie single adj. 2 points, double adj 3 points, double with attached canister 4 points, remote canister any # of adj 5 points. Or some variation.

 

Looking forward to 2010.

 

Peter

[JamesL]

Greg, can you give us any more info on the rule change for dampers in 2010?

 

Maybe a hint as to what the distinction between 3, 7, and 10 pt shocks will be? ie: range of adjustability, brand, etc?

[JamesL]

Thanks Greg,

 

This is for 2010.

 

My thoughts on the $$ to points might work better if it was related to the amount of adjustability. ie single adj. 2 points, double adj 3 points, double with attached canister 4 points, remote canister any # of adj 5 points. Or some variation.

 

Looking forward to 2010.

 

Peter

 

While I agree that "amount of adjustability" is a good way of separating the damper levels... Should $4000 single adj JRZs be worth less than $2500 triple adjustable taiwanese garbage coilovers? <- an actual question... ie: would it be "up to the driver" to select the best damper that falls in the adjustability/points range they want.

 

And are we going to continue distinguishing between full "coilovers" with spring/tophats/etc included, and simple stand alone dampers/shocks?

 

IMO, this is one of the hardest rules to provide adequate coverage for across the board.

[kbrew8991]

actually there is no distinction between spring/shock mod and coilover conversion as you can do a "simple" coilover with these mods:

+ 0 for ride height adjust (free mod)

+ 2 for springs

+ 3 for shocks (2 ranges of adj or less)

= 5

 

I'm compiling a few clarification / change requests into one email to send to Greg, and it was one of them to add a line to have a +5 for coilovers under $X, 2 ranges of shock adjustment or less. But with that rule changing anyway I can take that one off the list

[krisa9977]

There is very simple solution for this promlem. Instead increasing points for high $$$ shocks, add some extra pts for using springs firmer then 1000 lbs/in.

[Trevor57]

That makes absolutely no sense.

[kbrew8991]

yeah, I'll run Motons (if I can afford them) as my car will never need that much spring, even if it is mac-strut

[Joshua]

What about producing a matrix (similar to car classing) of popular shock options and asigning points based on performance and technical complexity? That way, single adjustable JRZs could carry more points than a single adjustable Megans. The challenge will be to come up with a fair matrix that includes all of the popular models and variants.

 

Spring rate limits would reward lighter cars (you'll never see 1k lb springs on a Miata), so I don't think that's a good idea.

[Trevor57]

There is no way NASA could look at every shock created for every car and assign it a point value. The idea is simplicity and ease of enforcement.

[Mrsideways]

I'm all for more points for stiffer springs. Allows someone to go only marginally stiffer without taking as many points. The issue is it's completely unfair to set a value on X rate. Having people calculate wheel rates starts to get way to complicated. So just leave it the way it is. No other form of racing allows you to have an advantage for running an aftermarket only marginally stiffer spring. Every other rule set out there is, Springs.. might as well go uber stiff.

The other issue with placing a value on X brand shock is that you can have a Koni MADE to be darn near as effective around a track as a moton. And coming from someone who's spent the money to do that years ago, you end up with more money in the koni's.

I like basing the points on adjustments and reservoirs. 1 point for no adjustment, 2 points for singles, 3 points for doubles, 4 points for remote canisters etc etc. Takes all the questions out of it.

[boomn29]

There is no way NASA could look at every shock created for every car and assign it a point value. The idea is simplicity and ease of enforcement.

Well said!

 

imo, trying to assign different pt levels for different spring rates would be crazy. Some cars work better with lighter springs, so why reward them and vice-versa. Plus some cars measure rates different.

And think about enforcement, most springs have a series of numbers on them but not all are relevant to the rates. And they get rubbed off pretty easily...

 

And a matrix of all brands is even crazier. There's a ton of no-name brands out there from China or Taiwan and new ones all the time that would constantly need added. Plus there's the one-offs and custom jobs; it would never end for Greg and crew!

 

I know the current adjustablility rules kept me from choosing the suspension I really wanted as I didn't have the pts for it. So I do think those pts for single/double/triple/quad, piggybacks and remote cannisters do make sense.

[Joshua]

The simple solution (points for different levels of adjustability and/or remote reservoirs) was suggested earlier, and I was suggesting an alternative. I happen to think the simpler solution is a good one.

[krisa9977]

yeah, I'll run Motons (if I can afford them) as my car will never need that much spring, even if it is mac-strut

 

If you'd run Motons, they would have remote reservoirs. It is clear that there must be more points added for remote reservoirs.

 

I'm running single adjustable Bilstein shocks with 1700lbs springs. Those shocks are better then Motons and cost more. If I changed springs to 600lbs, running those 6000$ shocks would make no significant difference as if I run double adjustable 1700$ TCK Koni.

 

Besides, most of the shocks(like JRZ) that cost more then 3000$, designed for higher then 1000lbs spring rates.

[kbrew8991]

while that works for your car, as it was said earlier light cars don't need such massive spring rates.

[krisa9977]

Yes, if you are not running racing slicks and your car doesn't have aero kit and enough power to create enough down force, you definitely do not need that much of the spring. You probably do not need Motons or expansive shocks too.

[Trevor57]

You aren't even considering geometry, or weight distribution or anything else. Do you think that because your car has stiff springs, that every car on the planet needs 1000# springs?

[phoenixR34]

He makes it sound like every Moton/JRZ has to run a 1200lb spring.. which is ridiculous. There are plenty of cars out there with Motons/Penskes running much softer spring rates and are still performing at the same level as the people running 1000lb plus. Make a rule about a 1000lb spring, and everyone would switch to 999lb springs, and probably not get any slower.

 

Everyone has their own opinion as to what's best, but I think if you took a poll of spring rates from all the top finishers at NASA events, you'd have some very interesting results. A top ST1 driver in Phoenix/SoCal is running 450lb springs on a 993 Porsche, with Motons.. it doesn't even make sense, as most 993 guys run 4x that spring rate, but he's going fast (in my best Ricky Bobby voice).

 

The word "matrix" in reference to the rulebook, is scary. And points for spring rates--good luck with that.

 

Methods of adjustment are easy to check and enforce, but I'll tell you right now that a double adjustable Koni is much different than a double adjustable JRZ. And once they simply measure methods of adjustment, everyone will think they need Penskes in order to be competitive, which is a turn-off, especially to newcomers.

 

Price makes sense, but is tough to track accurately, especially when smaller OEMs get involved directly, like we saw with the AST/S2000 case a few months ago.

 

Either way it's getting there. I'm curious to see what they come up with.

[krisa9977]

You are totally missing my point. My point is that there is no advantage to run high dollar single or double adjustable shocks that has no remote reservoirs if you are running soft springs. For some cars or some race tracks it is better to run softer springs, but 3000$ JRZ would perform the same way as 1500$ Koni. This is why there is no need to add extra points for shocks that cost more then 3000$.

 

You are getting most of the advantage out of 3000$ JRZ over 1500$ Koni only if you use stiff springs. JRZ would still perform better with soft springs, but not significant difference to add extra points.

 

Motons or Penske have remote reservoirs. Increasing pressure in remote reservoir, does the same thing as if you put stiffer springs.

[krisa9977]

Current Rules:

 

1) Non-OEM shocks/struts/dampers with an external reservoir or more than two ranges of

adjustment—must still take points for springs below +10 (example: compression (bump)

and both high & low rebound adjustments).

2) Non-OEM shocks/struts/dampers with a retail price of greater than $600 ($2400

total) or $750 each if sold only as a coilover with spring included ($3000 total). Also

“Piggyback” external reservoir shocks/coilovers/dampers with a retail price of less than

$1050 per unit ($4200 total)—must still take additional points for the springs below +7

3) Non-OEM or modified/re-valved shocks/struts/dampers +3 (all others)(springs not included)

 

Suggestion:

 

1) Non-OEM shocks/struts/dampers with an external reservoir or more than two ranges of

adjustment—must still take points for springs below +10 (example: compression (bump)

and both high & low rebound adjustments).

2) Single or Double adjustable non-OEM shocks/struts/dampers if used along with non-OEM springs higher then 1001 lbs/in.

Also “Piggyback” external reservoir shocks/coilovers/dampers +7

3) Non-OEM or modified/re-valved shocks/struts/dampers +3 (all others)(springs not included)

[vpnwiz]

...Methods of adjustment are easy to check and enforce, but I'll tell you right now that a double adjustable Koni is much different than a double adjustable JRZ. And once they simply measure methods of adjustment, everyone will think they need Penskes in order to be competitive, which is a turn-off, especially to newcomers...

I will agree and disagree. Agree that the assessing points based on the methods of adjustment probably makes the most sense, as it is easy to check/enforce. Disagree that everyone will think they now need double adjustable remotes to be competitive - but if they think that way, more power to 'em - they can take the points! The beauty of the TT/PT ruleset is that you need to pick and choose *where* you spend your points. If someone gets, say, +12 (just guessing at a point value next year) for double adjustable remote shocks that is 12 points they can't spend on horsepower, aero, tires, etc. etc. etc. There's WAY more than one way to be competitive in TT/PT.

 

Also, I don't think assigning point values to spring rates makes any sense - for the simple fact that it's impossible to check while on the car. The only way to enforce it is a) have a hunch that someone is running higher than 1000lb/in springs, and b) to have a spring tester on site at the track. Not very reasonable.

 

IMO aftermarket springs should be a flat rate +"x" no matter what they are rated.

 

Patrick

[DanSTi]

You are totally missing my point. My point is that there is no advantage to run high dollar single or double adjustable shocks that has no remote reservoirs if you are running soft springs. For some cars or some race tracks it is better to run softer springs, but 3000$ JRZ would perform the same way as 1500$ Koni. This is why there is no need to add extra points for shocks that cost more then 3000$.

 

You are getting most of the advantage out of 3000$ JRZ over 1500$ Koni only if you use stiff springs. JRZ would still perform better with soft springs, but not significant difference to add extra points.

 

Motons or Penske have remote reservoirs. Increasing pressure in remote reservoir, does the same thing as if you put stiffer springs.

So much about this is so wrong...